Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-08-08 · COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS · Notices

Notices. Notice and request for applications

53,080 words·~241 min read·/register/2006/08/08/06-6742·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Carolina Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the North Carolina Advisory Committee will convene at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m., on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at the offices of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge, and Rice located at 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2100, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.
The purpose of the meeting is an orientation of Committee members, a discussion of the Committee's report on Title I funding, a briefing on the Committee's school desegregation project, and a discussion of a project for 2007. Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee should contact Peter Minarik, Ph.D., Regional Director, the Southern Regional Office,
(404)562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten
(10)working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. Dated at Washington, DC, August 3, 2006. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E6-12873 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1466 Termination Of Foreign-Trade Subzones 133B and 133C, (Maytag Corporation), Herrin, Illinois and Newton, Iowa Pursuant to the authority granted in the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the Foreign-Trade Zones Board Regulations (15 CFR Part 400), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board has adopted the following order: Whereas, on November 1, 1989, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board issued a grant of authority to the Quad-City Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc. (Quad-City) authorizing the establishment of Foreign-Trade Subzones 133B and 133C at the Maytag Corporation facilities in Herrin, Illinois and Newton, Iowa (Board Order 448, 54 FR 47246, 11/13/89); Whereas, Quad-City advised the Board on August 9, 2005 (FTZ Docket 19-2006), that zone procedures were no longer needed at the facilities and requested voluntary termination of Subzones 133B and 133C; Whereas, the request has been reviewed by the FTZ Staff and Customs and Border Protection officials, and approval has been recommended; Now, therefore, the Foreign-Trade Zones Board terminates the subzone status of Subzones 133B and 133C, effective this date. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of July 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman. Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-12816 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1467 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 163, Ponce, Puerto Rico Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: Whereas, CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 163, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 163 to include a site in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, adjacent to the San Juan Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 67-2005, filed 12/22/2005); Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 77376-77377, 12/30/2005); and, Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 163 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of July 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-12810 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-351-809, A-201-805, A-580-809, A-533-502, A-549-502, A-489-501, C-489-502) Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Circular Welded Non-Alloy Pipes and Tubes from Brazil, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Antidumping Duty Orders on Welded Carbon Steel Pipe from India, Thailand and Turkey, and Countervailing Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on circular welded non-alloy pipe and tube from Brazil, Mexico, and Republic of Korea (Korea), and antidumping duty orders on welded carbon steel pipe from India, Thailand and Turkey, and countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of these antidumping and countervailing duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. CONTACT INFORMATION: Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:(202) 482-5050 or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders *Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Pipe and Tube from Brazil, Mexico and Korea* - (A-351-809)(A-201-805)(A-580-809) The products covered by these orders are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of these orders, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the United States as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in this order. Imports of the products covered by these orders are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive. *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube from India, Thailand and Turkey* - (A-533-502)(A-549-502)(A-489-501) The products covered by these orders include circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells. The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included in the scope of these orders, except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings are dispositive. *Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey* - (C-489-502) The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order is certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (“pipe and tube”). These products are currently provided for under the HTSUS as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Background On July 5, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on circular welded non-alloy pipe and tube from Brazil, Mexico, and Korea, antidumping duty orders on welded carbon steel pipe from India, Thailand and Turkey, and countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* ; 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005), and ITC notice of institution on *Certain Pipe and Tube From Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey* ; 70 FR 38204 (July 1, 2005) As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and the net countervailable subsidies likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders;* 70 FR 67662 (November 8, 2005), and *Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey* ; 70 FR 62097 (October 28, 2005). On July 25, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on circular welded non-alloy pipe and tube from Brazil, Mexico, Korea, the antidumping duty orders on welded carbon steel pipe from India, Thailand and Turkey, and the countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey; 71 FR 42118 (July 25, 2006), and USITC Publication 3867 (July 2006), (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 409-410, 532-534, and 536) (Second Review)). As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these antidumping and countervailing duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on circular welded non-alloy pipes and tubes from Brazil, Mexico, and Korea, the antidumping duty orders on welded carbon steel pipes from India, Thailand and Turkey, and the countervailing duty order on welded carbon steels standard pipes from Turkey. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)will continue to collect antidumping and countervailing duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year reviews of these orders not later than July 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12794 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-827) Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results and partial rescission of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China covering the period of review
(POR)December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, on July 6, 2006. *See Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006) ( *Final Results* ). We are amending our final results to correct a ministerial error alleged by China First Pencil Co., Ltd./Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (CFP/Three Star) pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4474 and
(202)482-0650, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain cased pencils of any shape or dimension (except as noted below) which are writing and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not decorated and whether or not tipped ( *e.g.* , with erasers, etc.) in any fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical characteristics: 1) length: 13.5 or more inches; 2) sheath diameter: not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before sharpening); and 3) core length: not more than 15 percent of the length of the pencil. In addition, pencils with all of the following physical characteristics are excluded from the scope of the order: novelty jumbo pencils that are octagonal in shape, approximately ten inches long, one inch in diameter before sharpening, and three-and-one eighth inches in circumference, composed of turned wood encasing one-and-one half inches of sharpened lead on one end and a rubber eraser on the other end. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Amended Final Results In accordance with section 751(a) the Act, on July 6, 2006, the Department published its final results and partial rescission of the administrative review of certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China. *See Final Results* . On July 10, 2006, CFP/Three Star submitted a ministerial error allegation with respect to the final results of administrative review. No other interested party submitted ministerial error allegations. No party submitted comments on the ministerial error allegation submitted by CFP/Three Star. In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, we have determined that a ministerial error was made in the calculation of the final margin for CFP/Three Star. *See* Memorandum from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, Allegation of Ministerial Error (July 28, 2006). Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act, we have corrected the error and are amending the final results of review accordingly. *See* Memorandum from Paul Stolz, Case Analyst through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to the File, Analysis Memorandum for Amended Final Results for China First Pencil Co., Ltd./Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (July 28, 2006). The revised final weighted-average dumping margin is as follows: Exporter/Manufacturer Original Weighted-Average Margin Percentage Amended Weighted-Average Margin Percentage China First Pencil Co., Ltd./Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. 26.62 2.76 The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, *see Final Results* . This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). July 28, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12818 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-821-807) Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from Russia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David Goldberger or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On May 1, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 25568 (May 1, 2006). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from the Vanadium Producers and Reclaimers Association
(VPRA)and its members: Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bear Metallurgical Corporation; and Metallurg Vanadium Corporation (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) and
(E)of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States, and a trade or business association of a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the order. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of this order. Ferrovanadium includes alloys containing ferrovanadium as the predominant element by weight ( *i.e.* , more weight than any other element, except iron in some instances) and at least 4 percent by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium includes compounds containing vanadium as the predominant element, by weight, and at least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen. Excluded from the scope of the order are vanadium additives other than ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap, vanadium-bearing raw materials, such as slag, boiler residues, fly ash, and vanadium oxides. The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.5040, 8112.40.3000, and 8112.40.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from Russia” (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) Galt Alloys, Inc 3.75 Gesellschaft für Elektrometallurgie m.b.H. (and its related companies Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation and Metallurg, Inc.) 11.72 Odermet 10.10 All Other Russian Manufacturers and Exporters * 108.00 * Prior to Russia's graduation to market-economy status, this rate was referred to as the Russia-wide rate. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12812 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen (“IQF”) red raspberries from Chile. The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. This review covers sales of IQF red raspberries by seven producers/exporters. We preliminarily find that, during the POR, sales of IQF red raspberries were made below normal value. Also, we intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Sociedad Anonima (“SANCO”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri (Olmue, Valle Frio), Andrew McAllister (Vitafoods), Scott Holland (VBM), Yasmin Bordas (SANCO, Valles Andinos), Steve Williams (Arlavan), or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3853,
(202)482-1174,
(202)482-1279,
(202)482-3813,
(202)482-4619, or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on IQF red raspberries from Chile. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: IQF Red Raspberries From Chile* , 67 FR 45460 (July 9, 2002). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 29, 2005, we received a request for review of 57 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”). On July 29, 2005, we also received requests for review from Fruticola Olmue S.A. (“Olmue”), Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (“Vitafoods”), Vital Berry Marketing S.A. (“VBM”), SANCO, 1 and Valles Andinos S.A. (“Valles Andinos”). 2 On August 19, 2005, the petitioners requested that Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. (“Valle Frio”) and Arlavan S.A. (“Arlavan”) be mandatory respondents. On August 29, 2005, we initiated an administrative review of all 57 companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). 1 On July 6, 2004, the Chilean tax authority approved a name change for Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Limitada (“SANCO Ltda.”) to Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones Sociedad Anonima (“SANCO S.A.”). SANCO stated that it underwent this restructuring because, under Chilean law, share companies (S.A.) can more easily add new partners. As part of the restructuring, SANCO created a separate limited liability company, Inversiones L.M. Ltda., that does not participate in the production, processing, sales process, or any other operations for SANCO's raspberry business. SANCO commenced exporting the merchandise under review as SANCO S.A. to the United States on July 30, 2004, after the beginning of the period of review. We reviewed SANCO's questionnaire responses and supporting documentation to confirm that the activities related to SANCO's name change are limited to those described above. For further information, *see SANCO's December 29, 2005, section A supplemental questionnaire response (“SQR”)* , at pages 1 through 6. Based on the information submitted, we preliminarily determine that SANCO S.A. is the successor-in-interest to SANCO Ltda. 2 These five companies were also included in the petitioners' July 29, 2005, request for review of 57 companies. On September 23, 2005, the petitioners withdrew their request for review for 50 of the 57 companies for which they had originally requested an administrative review. On October 14, 2005, Valles Andinos withdrew its request for review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), on December 28, 2005, we partially rescinded this administrative review with respect to the 50 companies included in the petitioners' withdrawal request. We did not rescind the review with respect to Valles Andinos because the petitioners' July 29, 2005, request for review included a request for Valles Andinos. *See Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 76771 (December 28, 2005). Thus, the seven companies in this review are: Arlavan, Vitafoods, Olmue, SANCO, Valle Frio, Valles Andinos, and VBM (collectively, “the respondents”). On September 26, 2005, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents submitted their initial responses to the antidumping questionnaire from October 2005 through May 2006. After analyzing these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents to clarify or correct the initial questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to these questionnaires. On March 22, 2006, we requested that Valle Frio respond to the constructed value (“CV”) portion of the Department's questionnaire. On March 7, 2006, and May 26, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** extensions of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review until no later than June 13, 2006, and July 31, 2006, respectively, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administration Review* , 71 FR 11386 (March 7, 2006); *Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2005 Administrative Review* , 71 FR 30378 (May 26, 2006). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are imports of IQF whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture method ( *e.g.* , organic or not), the size of the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red raspberries ( *i.e.* , puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice concentrate). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during March to April 2006, we verified the information provided by Olmue and SANCO in Chile using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on July 5, July 6, and July 27, 2006. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales Response of Santiago Comercio Exterior S.A. in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 5, 2006 (“ *Sales Verification Report - SANCO* ”); Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Cost Response of Santiago Comercio Exterior S.A. in the Antidumping Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 6, 2006 (“ *Cost Verification Report - SANCO* ”); Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales and Cost of Production Responses of Fruticola Olmué S.A. in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 27, 2006 (“ *Verification Report - Olmue* ”). These reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. Intent To Revoke In Part The Department “may revoke, in whole or part” an antidumping order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Secretary will consider:
(A)whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than normal value (“NV”) for a period of at least three consecutive years;
(B)whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and
(C)whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. The Department's regulations require, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation submit the following:
(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future;
(2)a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and
(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii). *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands* , 65 FR 742, 743 (January 6, 2000). On July 29, 2005, SANCO submitted a certification to the effect that for a consecutive three-year period, including the current review period, it sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV and that it would continue to do so in the future. Therefore, because we have determined that this respondent satisfies the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b), we preliminarily determine to revoke in part the antidumping order with respect to SANCO. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “ *Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order,* ” dated July 31, 2006. This memorandum is on file in room B-099 of the CRU. Collapsing Determination The Department's regulations provide that affiliated producers will be treated as a single entity where:
(1)those producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and
(2)the Department concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the Department may consider such factors as:
(i)the level of common ownership;
(ii)the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and
(iii)whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). These factors are illustrative, and not exhaustive. In its questionnaire responses, Valle Frio indicated that it had an affiliated producer, Agricola Framparque (“Framparque”), during the POR. Upon review of Valle Frio's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that Framparque should be collapsed with Valle Frio for the purposes of this review. *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, “ *Collapsing of Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.,* ” dated July 31, 2006. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. *See* the “Normal Value” section, below, for further details. We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to CV. In making product comparisons, consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: grade, variety, form, cultivation method, and additives. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 66 FR 67510, 67511 (December 31, 2001). Because the respondents' merchandise is always shipped on or before the date of invoice, we are using the date of shipment ( *i.e.* , guia de despacho/dispatch note date) as the date of sale. *See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998). Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We made company-specific adjustments as follows.
(A)*Vitafoods* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid (“DDP”) or cost, insurance, and freight (“CIF”) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. *See* Memorandum to the File, *“Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A.,”* dated July 31, 2006 ( *“Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum”* ). We have preliminarily excluded two sales reported, at the Department's request, in Vitafoods' U.S. sales database. We note that these sales were made to an unaffiliated U.S. entity for delivery to Canada. *See Vitafoods' October 26, 2005, section A response* , at Exhibit A-5; *see also Vitafoods' July 3, 2006, SQR* at page 2 and Exhibits 3S-4 and 3S-5. The unaffiliated U.S. entity subsequently trucked the merchandise from Canada to the United States. *See Vitafoods' July 28, 2006, SQR* at pages 1-3 and Exhibits 1-2. Certain documentation indicates that, at the time of sale, the sales might have been destined for either Canada or the United States. Vitafoods has stated that it considered these sales as Canadian rather than U.S. because the only destination known to Vitafoods was Canada. As we do not have conclusive evidence that Vitafoods knew, or should have known, at the time of sale, that the ultimate destination of the merchandise was the United States, the Department is preliminarily treating these sales as Vitafoods' sales to Canada.
(B)*Arlavan* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, free on board (“FOB”) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the warehouse and/or to the port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. port charges, agriculture certificates, and U.S. brokerage and handling. We did not include in our calculation certain sales listed in the U.S. sales database because we had reason to believe the supplier knew, or should have known, that the ultimate destination of the merchandise was the United States. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, *“Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Arlavan, S.A.”* dated July 31, 2006 ( *“Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum”* ), which is on file in the CRU. Because Arlavan is a reseller, and not a producer, of merchandise, we classified the expenses that were reported by Arlavan as general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses and financial expenses as indirect selling expenses. *See Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(C)*Olmue* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, cost and freight (“C&F”) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments and interest revenue. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, inland freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port, brokerage and handling, and international freight. We have reclassified certain commissions paid by Olmue as indirect selling expenses. These commissions were not sale-specific payments to a selling agent working on behalf of Olmue. Rather, these expenses related to general selling services ( *i.e.* , not directly facilitating sales) performed by another company. Therefore, certain reported commissions are properly classified as indirect selling expenses. *See Verification Report - Olmue* at section III.A. (Corporate Structure and Organization), section XI.C.1. (Commissions), and section XI.D.1. (Indirect Selling Expenses); *see also* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Fruticola Olmue S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2006 (“ *Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU. As a result of verification findings, we revised the following fields in Olmue's U.S. sales listing: quantity, inland freight, commissions, indirect selling expenses, selling agent, date of payment, credit expenses, and billing adjustments. *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - Olmue* .
(D)*SANCO* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB or FOB plus duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the warehouse or to the Chilean port, warehousing, domestic brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. For its U.S. sales, SANCO reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. As a result of verification findings, we have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the dispatch note, because that is when the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for SANCO, S.A.* ” dated July 31, 2006 (“ *SANCO Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU. *See also Sales Verification Report - SANCO* . As a result of verification findings, we have revised the direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, warehousing expenses, inland freight expenses incurred in Chile, brokerage and handling expenses incurred in Chile, and U.S. customs duties for certain U.S. sales. *See SANCO Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . *See also Sales Verification Report - SANCO* .
(E)*Valle Frio* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, inland freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, and thermograph expenses.
(F)*Valles Andinos* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB or C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included freight incurred in transporting merchandise from the plant to the Chilean port and domestic brokerage and handling. For its U.S. market sales, Valles Andinos reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the dispatch note, because that is when the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Valles Andinos, S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2006 (“ *Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU. Because Valles Andinos is principally a reseller, we classified the expenses that were reported by Valles Andinos as general and administrative expenses and financial expenses as indirect selling expenses. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(G)*VBM* We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the DDP price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling, pre-sale warehousing expenses, international freight, and U.S. customs duties. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The Act contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Arlavan, Olmue, SANCO, Valle Frio, and Valles Andinos reported that their home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, these five respondents did not have viable home markets for purposes of calculating NV. As its largest third country market, Arlavan reported Germany, Olmue and Valle Frio reported France, SANCO reported the United Kingdom, and Valles Andinos reported Canada. In all instances, sales to the third countries exceed five percent of sales to the United States. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating NV, Arlavan reported its sales to Germany, Olmue and Valle Frio reported their sales to France, SANCO reported its sales to the United Kingdom, and Valles Andinos reported its sales to Canada. In future administrative reviews, the Department will consider re-examining the selection of France as Valle Frio's comparison market. In particular, the Department will evaluate the comparability of foreign-like product to the subject merchandise. VBM and Vitafoods reported that their home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were more than five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, VBM's and Vitafoods' home markets were viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, VBM and Vitafoods reported their home market sales. To derive NV for all respondents, we made the adjustments detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” sections, below. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation ( *i.e.* , the first administrative review), the Department found that SANCO and Olmue made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. Therefore, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that IQF red raspberry sales were made in the comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) in this administrative review for SANCO and Olmue. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for these two respondents. The petitioners made an allegation of sales below the COP with respect to Arlavan (December 12, 2005), Valles Andinos (December 21, 2005), Vitafoods (December 21, 2005), VBM (December 21, 2005), and Valle Frio (March 20, 2006, supplemented on March 29, 2006). We found that the petitioners' allegations provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the comparison market by Arlavan, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, and VBM were made at prices below the COP. Accordingly, for these companies, we initiated an investigation to determine whether their comparison market sales of IQF red raspberries were made at prices below the COP during the POR. *See* Memoranda to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, on the following dates: January 12, 2006 (Arlavan), January 17, 2006 (Valles Andinos), January 24, 2006 (Vitafoods), and January 20, 2006 (VBM). For Valle Frio, we found that the petitioners' allegation did not provide the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that sales in the comparison market were made at prices below the COP. Therefore, we did not initiate an investigation to determine whether Valle Frio's comparison market sales of IQF red raspberries were made at prices below the COP during the POR. *See* Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, “ *Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production by Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio, Ltda.* ,” dated April 19, 2006. Because Valles Andinos and Arlavan are trading companies, we sent cost questionnaires to Valles Andinos' and Arlavan's suppliers. We chose the two largest suppliers for each respondent. For Valles Andinos, we received complete questionnaire responses from both suppliers. For Arlavan, we received a complete questionnaire from one supplier (Agricola San Antonio Limitada (“San Antonio”)); however, as explained below, we have not received complete, useable information from the other supplier (DICAF Exportaciones Limitada (“DICAF”)). The questionnaires we sent to the Partner and General Manager of DICAF were returned as undeliverable. *See* Memorandum to File, “ *Attempts to Deliver Section D Questionnaire in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated April 21, 2006. In its *May 15, 2006, SQR* at 1, Arlavan indicated that DICAF was bankrupt, and Arlavan provided contact information for Agroindustrial del Maule (“Agromaule”), which although separately incorporated has, effectively, the same familial ownership as DICAF. The Department, therefore, sent a cost questionnaire to Agromaule in early April 2006 and received a response from Agromaule's “legal representative” on May 1, 2006, which was mostly incomplete and unusable to the Department. The Department did, however, receive from Arlavan and Agromaule several supplemental responses that assisted the Department in further understanding the nature of the DICAF-Agromaule relationship. According to these responses, by August 2004, DICAF was unable to purchase its own raw materials because the Chilean tax authorities prohibited the company from doing so due to the fact that it was in arrears on taxes owed. *See Agromaule's May 1, 2006, section D response* at 1. According to Arlavan and Agromaule, the familial owners of DICAF formed Agromaule in September 2004 to make a “fresh startup” as DICAF was preparing for bankruptcy. *See id* . at 1 and *Agromaule's May 1, 2006, section D response* at 1. Agromaule purchased raw materials and then paid DICAF to process them. Although DICAF and Agromaule are legally two separate entities, the products, services, and personnel, as well as contact information, were the same. *See Arlavan's May 15, 2006, SQR* at 1. According to Arlavan, beginning with the 2004-05 growing season, the contacts at DICAF began having Arlavan contract for product purchases using Agromaule forms and making payments to Agromaule. Arlavan thus began working with Agromaule, receiving the same service and products it had received from DICAF - and working with the same people until the end of the 2004-2005 growing season, at which time Arlavan was informed that Agromaule would no longer be operating and would no longer be able to supply Arlavan with products. *See id* . at 1. Despite the Department's issuance of several supplemental questionnaires, Agromaule failed to provide the cost information required by the Department for these preliminary results. As a result, the Department has applied adverse facts available to calculate a COP for DICAF/Agromaule. *See* “Individual Company Adjustments” and “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” sections, below. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. We note that several respondents reported a blended cost for purchases of raw raspberries, *i.e.* , they reported a single price for purchases of whole and broken berries rather than different prices for the whole and broken berries. The Department is considering whether, in such instances, it is appropriate to compute these companies' berry costs using an alternative methodology and we intend to solicit additional information from these parties after the preliminary results. 2. Individual Company Adjustments We relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its cost questionnaire responses except in specific instances where, based on our review of the submissions and our verification findings, we believe that an adjustment is required, as discussed below.
(A)*Vitafoods* We are continuing to analyze *Vitafoods' July 24, 2006, SQR* , and may have further modifications to its cost data for the final results. 1) We have revised Vitafoods' G&A expenses to include certain proprietary non-operating expenses. *See Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . 2) We have revised Vitafoods' financial expenses to include a loss in currency transactions. Because these expenses relate to currency swap and other similar agreements, they are properly classified as financial expenses. *See Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(B)*Arlavan* We calculated a weighted-average COP using the COP of Arlavan's one responding supplier (San Antonio) for purchases from San Antonio and all other suppliers from whom information was not requested. As explained above, we used adverse facts available for the COP of the non-responsive supplier (DICAF/Agromaule). *See* “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section, below. Specifically, we calculated the simple average of the three highest COPs of all respondents' suppliers and used this as the DICAF/Agromaule COP. The suppliers' COPs were weighted by the quantities of subject merchandise purchased from them by Arlavan.
(C)*Olmue* For one non-organic meeker control number for which Olmue did not report costs, as facts available, we assigned the reported costs of other non-organic meeker control numbers to the above-mentioned control number. *See* “Facts Otherwise Available” section, below; *see also Olmue Calculation Memorandum* .
(D)*SANCO* 1) SANCO valued whole quality raspberries bagged as non-whole frozen raspberry product at the average purchase price of non-whole quality fresh raspberries rather than the average purchase price of whole quality fresh raspberries. We revalued whole quality raspberries bagged as non-whole frozen raspberry product at the average purchase price of whole quality raspberries. In addition, a portion of SANCO's freight relating to the transportation of fresh raspberries was omitted from the reported costs. Therefore, we added this portion of freight to the purchase price of fresh raspberries. Finally, we incorporated the two minor corrections to the raw material cost SANCO presented at verification ( *i.e.* , transcription errors made in the preparation of the purchase list and overstatement of the amount purchased). 2) SANCO reported the G&A and financial expenses of its affiliated frozen fruit processor, Agroindustria Sagrada Familia Ltda. (“ASF”), based on the POR and included these expenses in the variable overhead cost. To adjust for this, we first removed the G&A and financial expenses from variable overhead. We then calculated G&A and financial expense ratios based on ASF's 2004 financial statements and applied the ratios to SANCO's conversion costs ( *i.e.* , direct labor, variable overhead, fixed overhead). 3) We adjusted SANCO's G&A expense ratio to include certain depreciation expenses in the numerator and exclude these same depreciation expenses from the denominator. We also included in the numerator of the G&A expense ratio a loss on sales of fixed assets. *See* Memorandum from Frederick W. Mines to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, “ *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results* ,” dated July 31, 2006.
(E)*Valles Andinos* We made the following adjustments to the suppliers' reported COP data for non-organic frozen raspberry products: 1) For one supplier, we recalculated direct labor expenses. For further discussion, *see Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . 2) For the same supplier, we revised the allocation percentage applied to packing materials, variable overhead, and fixed overhead. *Id* . 3) We calculated each supplier's COP based on the total cost of manufacture (“COM”) of the subject merchandise, general and administrative expenses, and financial expenses. The suppliers' COPs were weighted by the quantities of subject merchandise purchased from them by Valles Andinos. We weight-averaged the suppliers' calculated COPs on the basis of Valles Andinos's finished product purchases by quantity. *Id* .; *see also Valles Andinos's February 9, 2006, SQR* , at pages 1-2. We made the following adjustment to Valles Andinos's reported COP data for organic frozen raspberry products: For the small amount of organic frozen raspberry products that Valles Andinos produced pursuant to a tolling arrangement, we based the COM on Valles Andinos's reported direct materials and processing costs. *See Valles Andinos's July 12, 2006, SQR* at page 1; *see also Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(F)*VBM* We did not make any changes. We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for each respondent to its comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the comparison market prices. The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to the POR average COP, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. For Olmue, Valles Andinos, VBM, and Vitafoods, we found that more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales of IQF red raspberries within an extended period of time were made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of IQF red raspberries for which there were no useable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section, below. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows. For all respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the “commission offset”). Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of
(1)the amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market, or
(2)the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific adjustments are described below.
(A)*Vitafoods* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of billing adjustments and movement expenses, including inland freight expenses from the plant to the distribution warehouse, warehousing, and inland freight expenses from distribution warehouse to the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and direct selling expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses). *See Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Because the denominator used in calculating Vitafoods' indirect selling expenses ratio is net of billing adjustments, we have applied the calculated indirect selling expenses ratio to Vitafoods' gross unit price net of billing adjustments. *See Vitafoods' July 3, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response* at page 4.
(B)*Arlavan* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted the starting price, where applicable, by the amount of movement expenses, including inland freight to the warehouse, warehousing, inland freight from distribution center to the Chilean port, Chilean brokerage and customs fees, agriculture certificates, temperature control recorders during transit, port charges, and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , commissions, external quality control/biological testing, courier charges, and credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , commissions, external quality control/microbiological testing, courier charges, and credit expenses). *See Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Because Arlavan is a reseller, and not a producer, of merchandise, we classified the expenses that were reported by Arlavan as G&A expenses and financial expenses as indirect selling expenses. *See Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(C)*Olmue* We based comparison market prices on the packed, C&F price to unaffiliated purchasers in France. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of movement expenses, including inland freight to the Chilean port, international freight, and brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , microbiological/pesticide testing, commissions, credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , microbiological/pesticide testing, commissions, credit expenses). *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We have reclassified certain commissions paid by Olmue as indirect selling expenses. These commissions were not sale-specific payments to a selling agent working on behalf of Olmue. Rather, these expenses related to general selling services ( *i.e.* , not directly facilitating sales) performed by another company. Therefore, certain reported commissions are properly classified as indirect selling expenses. *See Verification Report - Olmue* at section III.A. (Corporate Structure and Organization), section XI.C.1. (Commissions), and section XI.D.1. (Indirect Selling Expenses); *see also Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . As a result of verification findings, we revised the following fields in Olmue's French sales listing: inland freight, commissions, indirect selling expenses, selling agent, date of payment, credit expenses, billing adjustments, and date of shipment. *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - Olmue* .
(D)*SANCO* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United Kingdom. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of billing adjustments and movement expenses, including inland freight to the warehouse, warehousing, inland freight to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, microbiological testing) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, microbiological testing). For its comparison market sales, SANCO reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. As a result of verification findings, we have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the dispatch note, because that is when the foreign-like product was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated comparison market imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. *See SANCO Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Sales Verification Report - SANCO* . As a result of verification findings, we have revised the sale dates, payment dates, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, warehousing expenses, and brokerage and handling expenses incurred in Chile for certain comparison market sales. *See SANCO Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Sales Verification Report - SANCO* .
(E)*Valle Frio* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in France or sold to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to France. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of movement expenses, including, where appropriate, inland freight from the plant to the port, international freight, container handling/brokerage charges, and thermograph expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, commissions, microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses). *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.* ,” dated July 31, 2006 (“ *Valle Frio Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU.
(F)*Valles Andinos* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of movement expenses, including inland freight from the plant to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, and courier fees) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, and courier fees). *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . For its comparison market sales, Valles Andinos reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the dispatch note, because that is when the foreign-like product was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated comparison market imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Because Valles Andinos is principally a reseller, we classified the expenses that were reported by Valles Andinos as general and administrative expenses and financial expenses as indirect selling expenses. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(G)*VBM* We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in VBM's home market. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of movement expenses, including inland freight to the warehouse and warehousing. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, stack reservations, postage and handling charges, and microbiological testing expenses). *See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for IQF red raspberries for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For Arlavan, Olmue, SANCO, and Valles Andinos, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. For Valle Frio, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication plus an amount for G&A, and financial expenses in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We relied on the costs reported by Valle Frio and Framparque, except that we reclassified Framparque's G&A and financial expenses from overhead as they reported them, to G&A and financial expenses. *See* Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, “ *Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.* ,” dated July 31, 2006. We based SG&A expenses and profit for the above-mentioned respondents on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used U.S. packing costs as described in the “Export Price” section, above. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. E. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
(1994)(“SAA”) at 870. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003); *Antidumping Countervailing Duties: Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this case, we have found that an adverse inference is appropriate for DICAF/Agromaule, a supplier of Arlavan, because DICAF/Agromaule did not act to the best of its ability to report the data requested by the Department. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* , 69 FR 47869 (Aug. 6, 2004) (unchanged in final); *cf. Shandong Huarong Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 06-88 (CIT June 9, 2006) (“court agrees . . . that Company C, as a foreign manufacturer of subject merchandise, is an interested party under § 1677(9)(A)”). The Department acknowledges record evidence that Chilean courts declared DICAF bankrupt in August 2005, and that Agromaule ceased operations in 2005. *See* August 27, 2005, Official Gazette of bankruptcy declaration decision and Taxpayer Situation Information Statement in *Arlavan's May 15, 2005, SQR* at Exhibit SD-2. *See also* Agromaule's current Taxpayer Situation Information Statement at Exhibit SD-1 showing no tax authority stamps since 2005. However, the Department finds that statements submitted by Arlavan and Agromaule regarding the requested cost information do not reconcile and make the use of adverse facts available appropriate. First, Arlavan submitted a letter to the Department indicating that Agromaule's legal representative was willing to cooperate with the Department's review, but did not have the requisite information needed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. *See Arlavan's May 1, 2006, Letter in Reference to Agroindustrial del Maule's section D response* . According to Arlavan, Agromaule's records were taken from the company by Agromaule's accounting consultant, who also ran Agromaule's daily operations. He left the company in May 2005. *See Agromaule's May 1, 2006, section D response* at 2. This same accounting consultant had also been the General Manager and part owner of DICAF. We note, however, that there are close familial relationships between Agromaule and DICAF. *See Agromaule's May 15, 2006, section D questionnaire response at 3 and Agromaule's June 5, 2006, supplemental section D questionnaire* at 2. Arlavan's Assistant General Manager also contacted Agromaule's former accounting consultant directly. Contrary to the assertions of Agromaule's legal representative, the consultant maintained that he had no corporate records or documents of either Agromaule or DICAF. The consultant refused to put this in writing and would not respond to an email request by Arlavan. *See May 1, 2006, Letter from Arlavan in reference to Agroindustrial del Maule's section D response* . These conflicting stories are difficult to reconcile, given the close relationship between DICAF and Agromaule. As noted above, the familial owners of DICAF formed Agromaule as DICAF was preparing to enter bankruptcy. Given the close relationship between DICAF and Agromaule, including the direct relationship between the accounting consultant/GM/Partner of DICAF and the President of Agromaule, and the inconsistencies regarding the whereabouts of the corporate records, the Department preliminarily determines that DICAF/Agromaule did not act to the best of its ability and adverse inference is warranted. Therefore, we have applied adverse facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. The Department is requesting further documentation from Agromaule regarding the location of the books and records and Agromaule's ability to respond to the Department's questionnaire. The Department is applying neutral facts available to one of Olmue's reported control numbers for which it did not provide costs. Olmue noted that it did not have cost data for this control number because it was not produced during the POR. *See Olmue's February 21, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response* at page 18. Accordingly, we have applied facts available for the costs of this control number. Olmue's reported costs demonstrate that variety and cultivation type are the only product characteristics affecting Olmue's cost. Because the control number without reported costs is a non-organic meeker product, we have assigned the reported costs of other non-organic meeker control numbers to the above-mentioned control number. *See id* .; *see also Olmue Calculation Memorandum* . F. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 3 including selling functions, 4 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 3 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 4 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either comparison market or third country prices 5 ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 5 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. In this review, we determined the following, with respect to the LOT, for each respondent.
(A)*Vitafoods* Vitafoods reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Vitafoods did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Vitafoods regarding its marketing processes for its U.S. and home market sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Vitafoods has reported one channel of distribution for sales to the United States. In this channel of distribution, Vitafoods arranges to get the subject merchandise to the port for export. For certain sales in this channel, Vitafoods is also the importer of record. For other sales in this channel, Vitafoods' customer is the importer of record. Because Vitafoods has reported no significant variation in the selling activities for these sales, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods' U.S. sales. Vitafoods has reported two channels of distribution for its home market sales. In the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and then delivered to the customer's facility. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and then transported to the distribution center where it is delivered to the customer. Because Vitafoods has not reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these two channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods' home market sales. Comparing sales in Vitafoods' two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Although Vitafoods did make billing adjustments ( *i.e.* , discounts) on home market sales, these discounts are granted to each category of customers and do not significantly increase the level of selling activities performed by Vitafoods. Vitafoods did not provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or incur advertise for either U.S. or home market sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and home markets, and that Vitafoods' U.S. and home market sales were made at the same LOT.
(B)*Arlavan* Arlavan reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Arlavan did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Arlavan regarding its marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Arlavan reported two channels of distribution in the third country market and in the United States. In the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise purchased by Arlavan is transported directly from the supplier facility to the port for shipment. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is purchased from a supplier and transported to cold storage. Then, the merchandise is sold and shipped by Arlavan to the port of exit. In channels 1 and 2, Arlavan is responsible for arranging transportation to the port in Chile. For sales to the third country, Arlavan is responsible for arranging international freight. For sales to the United States, Arlavan is responsible for arranging international freight in a limited number of sales. Arlavan sells to the same customer types in channels 1 and 2. Based on this, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets. Comparing sales in Arlavan's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Although, due to clerical errors, Arlavan did make billing adjustments for U.S. sales, these adjustments do not significantly increase the level of selling activities performed by Arlavan. Arlavan did not grant discounts or rebates, provide technical services, or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on either U.S. or comparison market sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and comparison markets, and that Arlavan's sales to the U.S. and third country markets were made at the same LOT.
(C)*Olmue* Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in the third country and U.S. markets, and claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its sales processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Olmue reported that it sold to similar categories of customer in France and the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar selling activities regardless of the customer category. Sales in both markets were direct shipments from the plant to the customer. Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of distribution between the two markets. Also, Olmue did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on sales to the U.S. or third country markets. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Olmue's sales to the U.S. and third country markets were made at the same LOT.
(D)*SANCO* SANCO reported one channel of distribution in the third country market. In this channel of distribution, sales are made directly to the customer through short-term purchase orders. SANCO's customer is the importer of record. SANCO is responsible for arranging inland freight to the Chilean port and international freight. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the third country sales in this channel of distribution constitute a single LOT. In the U.S. market, SANCO reported two channels of distribution. In both channels of distribution, sales are made directly to the customer through short-term purchase orders. In the first channel of distribution (channel 1), the customer is the importer of record. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), SANCO is the importer of record. For sales in channels 1 and 2, SANCO is responsible for arranging inland freight from the plant to the Chilean port and, on certain sales, international freight. Because the sales processes in these channel of distribution were similar, we preliminarily determine that there is a single LOT in the United States. Comparing sales in SANCO's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. SANCO also did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on either U.S. or third country sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that SANCO's sales to the U.S. and third country markets were made at the same LOT.
(E)*Valle Frio* Valle Frio reported two channels of distribution in the third country market and a single channel of distribution in the United States. Valle Frio indicated that its sales to the United States and third country markets were made at the same level of trade and it did not request a level of trade adjustment. In the single channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped directly to the customer on an FOB (Chilean port) basis. For third country sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), Valle Frio shipped the merchandise directly to the third country market. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is sold to a Chilean customer who re-sold the product to the third country. For both markets, Valle Frio sold to wholesalers and distributers, and Valle Frio's prices did not vary based on channel of distribution or customer category. We examined the information reported by Valle Frio regarding its marketing processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. For sales to the third country and United States, Valle Frio's selling activities were limited to receiving and processing orders, and, depending on the terms of sale, arranging for delivery to the third country. Valle Frio offered no technical assistance, inventory maintenance services, or advertising in either market for IQF red raspberries, regardless of channel of distribution. Valle Frio indicated that all export sales require that a microbiological analysis be conducted in order to ensure compliance with phytosanitary requirements. According to Valle Frio, all selling activities were performed in Chile. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Valle Frio's U.S. and third country sales were made at the same LOT.
(F)*Valles Andinos* Valles Andinos reported one channel of distribution in the comparison market. In this channel, sales are made directly to the customer. All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's cold storage facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea freight to the comparison market customer. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that comparison market sales are made at a single LOT. In the U.S. market, Valles Andinos reported one channel of distribution. In this channel, sales are made directly to the customer. All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's cold storage facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea freight to the U.S. customer. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the sales are made at a single LOT in the United States. Comparing sales in Valles Andinos's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Valles Andinos did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on either U.S. or third country sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and comparison markets, and that Valles Andinos's sales in the U.S. and comparison market were made at the same LOT.
(G)*VBM* VBM reported two channels of distribution to the United States, and two channels of distribution in the home market. VBM claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same, and therefore, it did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by VBM regarding its marketing processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the types and levels of selling activities performed. For U.S. sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse before being transported to the port of shipment. For U.S. sales in the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is transported directly from the processing plant to the port for shipment. VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between these channels of distribution. In both channels of distribution, VBM is responsible for arranging inland freight to the port in Chile. VBM is also the importer of record. VBM sells to the same types of customer in both channels of distribution. Except for small differences regarding transportation of the product from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, there are no differences in the selling activities for these two channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market. VBM has also reported two channels of distribution for its home market sales. For home market sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked up directly from the warehouse by the customer. For home market sales in the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is picked up by the customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these two channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in VBM's home market. Comparing sales in VBM's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and home markets, and that VBM's sales in the U.S. and home markets were made at the same LOT. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margins: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. 0.00 Arlavan S.A. 3.03 Fruticola Olmue S.A. 4.98 Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones S.A. 0.13 ( *de minimis* ) Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola Framparque 0.36 ( *de minimis* ) Valles Andinos S.A. 6.42 Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. 4.48 Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements If the final results remain unchanged from these preliminary results, no future cash deposits will be required for the subject merchandise with respect to SANCO. For all other exporters/manufacturers, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of IQF red raspberries from Chile entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review will be 6.33 percent, the “all others” rate established in *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12815 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-357-802) Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Argentina: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce initiated and the International Trade Commission instituted the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina. The International Trade Commission determined that revocation of this antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, the Department of Commerce is revoking the antidumping duty order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman or Minoo Hatten, Office 5, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3931 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is light-walled welded carbon steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross-section having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. This merchandise is classified under item number 7306.60.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. It was formerly classified under item number 610.4928 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Background On August 22, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the continuation of the antidumping duty order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina resulting from the first sunset review of this order. See *Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Light-Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Argentina and Taiwan; Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan; Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From India, Thailand, and Turkey; and Small Diameter Standard and Rectangular Steel Pipe and Tube from Taiwan* , 65 FR 50955 (August 22, 2000). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)instituted the second sunset review of this order on July 1, 2005. See *Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005); *Institution of Five-year Reviews concerning the Countervailing Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey and the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey* , 70 FR 38204 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. See *Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Argentina and Taiwan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 70 FR 67432 (November 7, 2005). On June 29, 2006, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See *Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey* , 71 FR 42118 (July 25, 2006) and ITC Publication 3867 (July 2006), entitled *Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 409, 410, 532-534, and 536 (Second Review)* . Determination to Revoke As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is revoking the order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 22, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 22, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year sunset review and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12866 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-843) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. SUMMARY: We determine that imports of certain lined paper products (“CLPP”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice. Moreover, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to exports of CLPP from India. See the “Critical Circumstances” section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4161 or
(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 17, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of CLPP from India. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). From May 19 through May 26, 2006, we verified the sales and cost questionnaire responses of Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”). We requested that parties comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . We received comments from petitioner 1 and each of the respondents, Aero Exports (“Aero”), Kejriwal, and Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. (“Navneet”). On May 17, 2006, respondents, Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet, requested a hearing to discuss issues addressed by the interested parties in their case or rebuttal briefs. The Department held the hearing on July 6, 2006. We did not receive any comments regarding the scope of the investigation. 1 The petitioner in this investigation is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual members (MeadWestvaco Corporation, Norcom, Inc., and Top Flight, Inc.) (“petitioner”). Period of Investigation The period of investigation is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 31, 2006 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is adopted by this notice. A list of issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the world wide web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of Investigation For scope information, see Appendix I. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for the only company for which we are calculating a margin, Kejriwal. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Analysis Memorandum for Kejriwal Paper” from Christopher Hargett, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to James Terpstra, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, dated July 31, 2006. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Kejriwal for use in our final determination from May 19 through May 26, 2006. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we continue to base Kejriwal's normal value (“NV”) on constructed value (“CV”). In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Kejriwal's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), profit, and packing costs for exportation to the United States. For changes made to Kejriwal's CV since the preliminary determination, see the “Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination - Kejriwal Paper Limited” memorandum from Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, through Peter S. Scholl, Lead Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, dated July 31, 2006. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. As discussed in the *Preliminary Determination* , the cost of production (“COP”) questionnaire responses submitted by Aero and Navneet were not useable for purposes of calculating accurate LTFV margins. Since the issuance of the initial questionnaire to Aero and Navneet, the Department granted both parties numerous extensions up to and including the submission of the third supplemental questionnaire responses, which were received on March 29, 2006. Over a five-month period, the Department carefully and repeatedly identified the numerous significant deficiencies and errors where we needed more complete information in order to understand the reported information. Throughout this process, there was a consistent pattern of non-responsiveness and confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent information provided by Aero and Navneet. As discussed in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department provided several opportunities for Aero to submit information critical to the Department's analysis, and the Department extended deadlines to allow Aero the time to respond completely to the Department's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. The Department issued three sets of supplemental questionnaires, repeatedly asking the same detailed questions that remained unanswered from the previous supplemental questionnaire. After the issuance of the three supplemental questionnaires, the Department is left with critical information absent from the record. In addition, questions still remain unanswered as to the accuracy and reliability of the reported cost information. Because Aero withheld requested information, failed to provide such information by the deadlines in the form and manner required, impeded this investigation, and reported information that could not be verified, the Department may resort to facts otherwise available, in reaching its final determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and
(D)of the Act. Due to the fact that most of the reasons regarding the use of facts available for Aero are considered business proprietary information, please see the Memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper entitled “Use of Adverse Facts Available for the Final Determination - Aero Exports,” dated July 31, 2006, on file in the CRU. As discussed in the *Preliminary Determination* , Navneet failed to provide: 1) various reconciliation schedules ( *i.e.* , the overall cost reconciliation, the overall quantity reconciliation, and the overall purchased paper reconciliation) and explanations of reconciling amounts; 2) a consistent explanation for its product cost calculation methodology that demonstrates the link between its reported costs and its normal books and records; and 3) complete supporting documentation for the matching product control number (“CONNUM”) cost build-up schedules. Without this information, the Department is unable to determine whether Navneet accounted for all its production costs relating to the merchandise under investigation. Therefore, the Department was unable to rely on Navneet's submitted costs. Moreover, based on the statements made by Navneet and the exhibits provided in its questionnaire responses, it is apparent that Navneet departed from the product costs recorded in its normal books and records when calculating its reported product costs to the Department. Thus, the costs the Department should be using, the per-unit costs from its normal books and records, are not on the record of this proceeding. Section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires that companies normally use their normal books and records in reporting costs for an antidumping investigation. Finally, we note that Navneet failed to provide the POI job order worksheet reconciliation, which the Department requested to determine whether Navneet relied on its normal books and records and whether its reported costs reconciled to those records. *See* the Issues and Decisions Memorandum, at Comment 14. As a result of the numerous, serious deficiencies, we were unable to adequately determine whether the cost information contained in Aero and Navneet's responses reasonably and accurately reflects the costs incurred by these companies to produce the subject merchandise. Without this information, we cannot accurately calculate LTFV margins for these companies. Therefore we continue to find that, by failing to provide the required information in the manner requested, Aero and Navneet did not act to the best of their ability. Consequently, the Department has determined that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. Thus, the Department finds that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted under section 776(a)(2) of the Act. Corroboration of Information Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d); *see also* the Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* the SAA at 870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *Id* . To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this final determination, we relied on our analysis from the preliminary determination. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 19710. *See also* , “Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products (“CLPP”) from India: Selection of Total Adverse Facts-Available Rate” from the Team to James Terpstra, Program Manager Office III, dated April 7, 2006. Based on this analysis, we determined that the price and cost information contained in the petition do not have probative value. Therefore, we have relied on the information reported by Kejriwal which has probative value, as confirmed by verification. Accordingly, we find that the second highest individual margin calculated in this proceeding based on the data reported by a respondent, Kejriwal, in this investigation, 23.17 percent, is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 15. All Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that, the estimated “All Others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and *de minimis* margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Kejriwal is the only respondent in this investigation for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “All Others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the dumping margin calculated for Kejriwal, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below. Critical Circumstances In our *Preliminary Determination* , we found that critical circumstances did not exist for Kejriwal or any company subject to the “All Others” rate. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 19712. However, we found that critical circumstances did exist for Aero and Navneet. *Id* . We received no comments on our critical circumstances determination. Considering the changes made to Kejriwal's margin calculation, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of subject merchandise for Kejriwal or any company subject to the “All Others” rate, as there is no evidence that importers knew, or should have known, that the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV. *See* 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price sales, or 15 percent or more for constructed export price transactions, sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. We find that critical circumstances does not exist for Kejriwal or any company subject to the “All Others” rate. In addition, we find that critical circumstances does not exist for both Aero and Navneet, because the assigned AFA rate of 23.17 percent is less than the 25 percent sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports os subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 17, 2006, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** . Because we did not find critical circumstances in this final determination, we will instruct CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation, and release any cash deposits or bonds, on imports during the 90 day period prior to the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Final Determination We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percent) Aero Exports 23.17 Kejriwal Paper Limited 3.91 Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. 23.17 All Others 3.91 In accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based the “All Others” rate on the weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the exporter/manufacturer investigated in this proceeding. The “All Others” rate is calculated exclusive of all de minimis margins and margins based entirely on AFA. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine within 45 days whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this investigation whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated , included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper, “ and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Appendix II - Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Calculation of CVD offset to the AD Cash Deposit Rate Comment 2: Financial Expense Ratio Comment 3: General and Administrative Expense Ratio Comment 4: Scrap Offset Comment 5: Depreciation Expense Comment 6: Kejriwal's “Flexi Com Books” and “Personal Note Books”: Scope Issue Comment 7: Excise Tax Rebated and Duty Free Replenishment Certificates (“DFRC”) Comment 8: Kejriwal's Packing Ministerial Error in Preliminary Determination Comment 9: Kejriwal's Imputed U.S. Credit Expense Comment 10: Kejriwal's Minor Correction Regarding USDUTYU Field Comment 11: Decision not to Verify the Sales and Critical Circumstances Responses of Aero and Navneet Comment 12: Decision not to Fully Extend the Final Determination Comment 13: Whether the Cost Investigation was Unlawful and Not Based on Substantial Evidence Comment 14: Whether Adverse Inferences were Warranted for Aero and Navneet Comment 15: Legality of Methodology and Adverse Rates Applied to Aero and Navneet Comment 16: Treatment of Negative Margins [FR Doc. E6-12811 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-881 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published *Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37051 (June 29, 2006) (“ *Final Results* ”), covering the period of review (“POR”) December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We are amending the *Final Results* to correct two ministerial errors made in the calculation of the dumping margin for LDR Industries Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (collectively “SLK”), pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats or Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5047 or 202-482-1904, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Period of Review The POR is December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Excluded from the scope of this order are metal compression couplings, which are imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products range in diameter from ½ inch to 2 inches and are carried only in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Background On June 29, 2006, the Department published the *Final Results* in the **Federal Register** . On June 28, 2006, and July 3, 2006, we received ministerial error allegations from SLK and Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory (“Chengde”). On July 24, 2006, the Department rejected a second submission filed by Chengde as untimely. A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” After analyzing SLK's comments, we agree that the Department made two ministerial errors in SLK's margin calculation program for the *Final Results* . After analyzing Chengde's comments, we disagree with its allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in Chengde's margin calculation program for the *Final Results* . *See* the July 31, 2006, Memorandum from Juanita H. Chen to Wendy J. Frankel regarding the 2003-2004 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations. As a result, we are amending the *Final Results* only to revise the antidumping margin for SLK, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e). Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations SLK Allegation: Calculation Error for Weight Conversion SLK argues that the Department erred when it converted SLK's U.S. expenses and packing factors from a per-piece basis to a per-kilogram basis by using an incorrectly calculated average weight of all the reported producer-specific weights ( *i.e.* , WEIGHT4 in the margin calculation program). Specifically, SLK argues that the error resulted from the use of the “ID” statement in the SAS calculation program when weight averaging all of the reported weights of each fitting, thereby resulting in the Department's unintentional selection of the highest reported producer-specific weight rather than the weighted-average weight. SLK claims that the Department then applied the highest per-unit weight as reported by SLK's suppliers in its factors of production (“FOP”) databases to convert the U.S. expenses and its packing expenses to a per-kilogram basis. SLK suggests that the Department correct this ministerial error by eliminating the “ID” statement and adding WEIGHT4 to the VAR statement, which calculates a weighted average of the reported producer-specific weights instead of the highest of the reported producer-specific weights. Department's Position: We agree with SLK that we inadvertently selected the highest reported weight by using the “ID” statement in the margin calculation. For these final results, we have eliminated the “ID” statement and added WEIGHT4 to the VAR statement. As a result, the revised margin calculation program applies the weighted-average of the reported producer-specific weights. Thus, we have revised SLK's margin accordingly. SLK Allegation: Currency Conversion Error for Packing Expenses SLK argues that the Department erroneously used Indian rupee-denominated freight values, instead of U.S. dollar-denominated freight values in calculating packing expenses. Specifically, SLK claims that the Department converted all the freight expenses related to SLK's packing FOPs from Indian rupees to U.S. dollars, but when calculating the total packing expenses, the Department added Indian rupee-denominated freight values to U.S. dollar-denominated surrogate values for the packing inputs. SLK suggests that the Department should correct this mistake by replacing the Indian rupee-denominated freight values with U.S. dollar-denominated freight values in the margin calculation for packing expenses. Department's Position: We agree with SLK that we erroneously used Indian rupee-denominated freight values instead of U.S. dollar-denominated freight values in its margin calculation for packing expenses. For these amended final results, we corrected this ministerial error and used freight values that were converted to U.S. dollars before adding these values to the U.S. dollar-denominated surrogate values for the packing inputs in SLK's margin calculation program. Amended Final Results As a result of the correction of ministerial errors and amended margin calculation, the following weighted-average margin exists for SLK, for the period of December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004. Producer/Exporter Original Weighted-average percentage margin Amended Weighted-average percentage margin LDR Industries Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. 14.69 9.24 The Department will disclose calculations performed for the amended final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, see Final Results, 71 FR 37051, 37056. These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12817 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-475-818) Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (“pasta”) from Italy for the period of review (“POR”) July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, both Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”) and Atar, S.r.L. (“Atar”) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price and normal value (“EP”). Further, requests for review of the antidumping duty order for the following companies were withdrawn: Barilla G.e.R. Fratelli, S.p.A.,/Barilla Alimentare, S.p.A. (“Barilla”), Moline e Pastificio Tomasello S.r.L. (“Tomasello”), and Pastificio Laporta S.a.s (“Laporta”). Because the withdrawal requests were timely and there were no other requests for review of these companies, we are rescinding the review for these companies. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Furthermore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Italpasta/Pasta Berruto S.p.A. (“Italpasta”) 1 because Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). As discussed in the *Partial Rescission* section below, customs data did not contradict Italpasta's claim that it did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 1 In its September 20, 2005 letter, counsel for Italpasta S.p.A. informed the Department that it merged with its affiliate, Arrighi S.p.A. into a new company Pasta Berruto S.p.A.. *See* Letter to the Department from Italpasta, Re: Pasta from Italy; Response to Questionnaire (September 20, 2005). Finally, we are rescinding the review with respect to Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.L./Industrie Alimentari Molisane, S.r.L./Vitelli Foods, LLC (“Pallante”) because, since the initiation of the current review, the Department has revoked the order in part, with respect to Pallante, effective July 1, 2004. *See Notice of Final Results of the Eighth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Certain Pasta From Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005) (“ *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* ”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and partial rescission. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with them:
(1)a statement of the issues and
(2)a brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments on diskette. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure, Maura Jeffords or Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5973,
(202)482-3146 or
(202)482-0395, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). We received requests for review from petitioners 2 and from individual Italian exporters/producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1)&(2). On August 29, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, listing these seven companies as respondents: Barilla, Atar, Italpasta, Tomasello, Laporta, Corticella/Combattenti, and Pallante. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). 2 New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers Pasta Company; and American Italian Pasta Company. On October 13, 2005, Laporta timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 9, 2005, Barilla timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 14, 2005, Tomasello timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. No other party requested a review of these three entities. Between October 2005 and July 2006, the Department issued its initial questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to each respondent, as applicable. In the initial questionnaire to Corticella/Combattenti, the Department requested that Corticella/Combattenti submit its cost of production information because during the Department's most recently completed review, we disregarded sales made by Corticella/Combattenti at less than cost of production. *See* sections 773 (b)(1) and (2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”); *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005). We received responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires on October 31, 2005, February 2, March 15, June 27, June 30 and July 18, 2006 from Atar. Corticella/Combattenti provided responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires on February 6, February 16, and March 30, 2006. On November 21, 2005, January 4, and May 1, 2006, the petitioners filed comments on Atar's response. Atar filed rebuttal comments on December 1, 2005, February 6, and May 8, 2006. On March 10, 2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from April 3, to May 18, 2006. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 13584 (March 16, 2006). On May 17, 2006, we fully extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from May 18, to July 31, 2006. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 29615 (May 23, 2006). We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Atar between May 31 and July 7, 2006. Affiliation and Collapsing During the seventh administrative review in this proceeding, the Department collapsed Corticella/Combattenti and its affiliated toll producer, CLC. The Department found, among other things, that Corticella/Combattenti and CLC had common ownership, common control and management, and significant potential for manipulation of price and production; therefore, the Department collapsed the companies for purposes of that review. *See Notice of Final Results of the Seventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy and Determination to Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 6832, 6833 (February 9, 2005) ( *Pasta Seventh Review Final Results* ) (citing the February 2, 2005, memorandum from the Team to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, entitled, “The relationship of Coopertive Lomellina Cerealicoltori S.r.l.
(CLC)with Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. (Corticella) and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (Combattenti, collectively Corticella/Combattenti),” a proprietary document, the public version of which is available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the main Department building.) This memo has been placed on the record of this review. *See* Memo to File, dated July 31, 2006. The Department also found Corticella/Combattenti and CLC to be a single entity for the purposes of the eighth administrative review. *See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , 70 FR 6832, 6833. As the facts are the same for this POR as they were for both the *Pasta Seventh Review Final Results* and the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , we continue to find that there is significant potential for manipulation of price and production between these affiliated parties, and therefore, we have treated Corticella/Combattenti and CLC as a single entity for this review. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, or by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of March 13, 2003, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”) are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”) as a Public Authority for Certifying Organic Pasta from Italy” which is on file in the Department's CRU. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ ** ”). Although the *HTSUS* subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission Between October 13 and November 14, 2005, Laporta, Barilla, and Tomasello timely withdrew their requests for administrative review of the antidumping order. Because their withdrawal requests were filed within 90 days of publication of the *Initiation Notice* , and because there were no other requests for review of the above-mentioned companies, we are rescinding the review with respect to Laporta, Barilla, and Tomasello in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On November 29, 2005, the order was revoked, in part with respect to Pallante. *See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005). Consequently, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Pallante. On September 20, 2005, Italpasta submitted a letter stating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. We confirmed this information through customs data. See Memorandum to the File from the Team regarding Customs Query dated May 18, 2006, the public version of which is on file in the CRU. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the review in part as to Italpasta because it made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise during the review period. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics:
(1)pasta shape;
(2)type of wheat;
(3)additives; and
(4)enrichment. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority. When there were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value (“CV”), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (“VCOM”) between each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for comparison. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV for Corticella/Combattenti and CV for Atar and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. *See* the company-specific calculation memoranda, available in the CRU. Export Price For both Corticella/Combattenti and Atar, for the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We based EP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (“CIF”), ex-factory, free-on-board (“FOB”), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. When appropriate, we made adjustments to these prices to reflect billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, and freight revenue. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from the plant to the distribution warehouse, from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, warehousing, and U.S. duties. In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review of the countervailing duty order applicable to the POR, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Corticella/Combattenti reported resales to the United States of subject merchandise purchased in Italy from unaffiliated producers. In those situations in which an unaffiliated producer of the subject pasta knew at the time of the sale that the merchandise was destined for the United States, the relevant basis for the EP would be the price between that producer and the respondent. *See Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Notice of Determination Not to Revoke Order* , 63 FR 50867, 50876 (September 23, 1998). Because we determined in prior reviews that virtually all enriched pasta is sold to the United States, we preliminarily determine, as we did in prior reviews, that the unaffiliated producers knew or had reason to know at the time of sale that the ultimate destination of the merchandise was the United States. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order in Part: Eighth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 70 FR 42303, 42306 (“ *Pasta Eighth Review Prelim* ”); *Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part: For the Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 68 FR 47020, 47028; *Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 63 FR 42368, 42370 (August 7, 1998). Accordingly, consistent with our methodology in prior reviews, when a respondent purchased pasta from other producers and we were able to identify resales of this merchandise to the United States, we excluded these sales of the purchased pasta from the margin calculation for that respondent. *See, e.g., Pasta Eighth Review Prelim* , 70 FR 42303, 42306 (July 22, 2005); *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , 70 FR 71464 (November 29, 2005). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Where a respondent had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. Based on the data Corticella/Combattenti reported for its home market sales, we determined that its home market was a viable basis for calculating NV. Atar's home market sales were less than five percent of its aggregate sales to the United States; therefore, Atar's home market sales are not viable for calculating NV. When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if the prices in such market are representative; the aggregate quantity or, if the quantity is not appropriate, the value of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third- country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third- country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. Atar reported Angola as its largest and only third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States). While the volume of Atar's third-country market sales exceeded five percent, the Department preliminarily determines that a particular market situation exists which prevents proper comparison between Atar's third-country market sales and its U.S. sales. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3: Particular Market Situation, July 31, 2006 (a public version is on file in the CRU). Therefore, consistent with section 773(a)(1)(B)(4) of the Act, we are calculating NV based on CV. We calculated NV as noted in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section of this notice. B. Arm's-Length Test Corticella/Combattenti reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-users and affiliated resellers. 3 The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, *i.e.* , sales at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices and included such sales in the calculation of NV. *See Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 70651, 70652 (December 7, 2004); *Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy* , 69 FR 48205, 48208 (August 9, 2004); *see also* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where all sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party were excluded from the NV calculation. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002). 3 We note that sales from Corticella/Combattenti to each affiliated customer constitute less than 5 percent of Corticella/Combattenti's total sales in the foreign market and we did not require it to report the sales from its affiliated resellers to the unaffiliated customers. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(d). C. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of Cost of Production
(COP)We conducted a COP analysis of Corticella/Combattenti pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on home market sales and COP information provided by Corticella/Combattenti in its questionnaire responses, except where noted below: Molini Certosa, a semolina producer affiliated with Corticella and Combattenti, sold Corticella/Combattenti semolina, a major input to the production of pasta. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act, the “major input rule”, states that “if, in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, the administering authority has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the cost of production of such input, then the administering authority may determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph (2).” Section 773(f)(2), the “transactions disregarded rule,” states that transactions between affiliated persons “may be disregarded if, in the case of any element of value required to be considered, the amount representing that element does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration.” We evaluated the transfer prices between Molini Certosa and Corticella and Combattenti accordingly. The Department normally determines the market price of a particular input by looking at the average price of any transactions made between the respondent and unaffiliated suppliers. *See* Section D at question II. A. 8. c. in the Department's September 7, 2005, questionnaire. Such transactions were available in this case, and we determined the market price of the semolina input by determining the weighted-average price of all such transactions between Corticella/Combattenti and their unaffiliated suppliers, as applicable, in this POR. In its February 16, 2006, response to the section D supplemental questionnaire, Corticella claimed that transactions between Combattenti and a certain unaffiliated supplier are not reflective of a market price, and therefore the Department should not use prices between Combattenti and this supplier in determining the market price for the purposes of applying the major input rule. Corticella also claimed, in its March 30, 2006, response to the section D supplemental questionnaire, that transactions between Combattenti and this unaffiliated company are functionally a “tolling” arrangement, even though Combattenti takes ownership of the semolina. Corticella claims that Combattenti recovers the semolina price through a conversion fee charged to the customer/supplier. We disagree with Corticella that we should exclude the purchases of semolina from the supplier in question. First, the supplier is not affiliated with Combattenti. Second, even Corticella concedes that the supplier is not a toller. *See also* 19 CFR 351.401(h). Indeed, Combattenti acquires ownership and controls the relevant sale through its contractual agreement; therefore, Combattenti is the producer of pasta, not a subcontractor or toller. *See Notice of Final Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 69 FR 18869 (April 9, 2004). Furthermore, Corticella failed to provide any evidence that these purchases were not at arm's length or anything other than market transactions. Therefore, we have included them in our calculation of market price used to test Corticella's affiliated purchases of semolina. Because the market price was higher than the transfer prices between Molini Certosa and both Corticella and Combattenti and higher than Molina Certosa's COP, consistent with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we increased the reported direct material cost to reflect the market price. For further details regarding these adjustments, *see* the Department's “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for Preliminary Results - Corticella” (COP Memorandum) (July 31, 2006). 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(1) of the Act, for Corticella/Combattenti we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the sales-below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also excluded from the COP), and packing expenses. 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” In contrast, where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this methodology, for Corticella/Combattenti, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded certain below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See* the company-specific calculation memoranda on file in the CRU, for our calculation methodology and results. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices For Corticella/Combattenti, we calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. When appropriate, we made adjustments to these prices to reflect billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, international freight, and warehousing. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance-of-sale (“COS”) adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, and bank charges, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such adjustment to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the VCOM for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Sales of pasta purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same manner described above in the “Export Price” section of this notice. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value For Atar, we calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of a respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We relied on Atar's submitted materials and fabrication costs, G&A expenses and U.S. packing costs. We adjusted Atar's reported total cost of manufacture to account for an unreconciled difference between its reported costs and its financial accounting records. Further, we calculated selling expenses and profit, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, as detailed in the Memorandum to Neal Halper from LaVonne Clark, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results (July 31, 2006) (“Preliminary Results Cost Calculation Memo”). Because the Department has determined for purposes of these preliminary results that Atar does not have a viable comparison market, we could not determine selling expenses and profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we relied on section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act to determine these selling expenses and profit. Specifically, we used the weighted-average selling expenses and profit rate derived from the comparison market data of the respondents in the previous administrative review. *See Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* . *See* Memo to the File from LaVonne Clark through Taija Slaughter, Final Results Calculations from the Eighth Administrative Review (July 31, 2006) (placing selling expense and profit data submitted by respondents in the Eighth Administrative Review on the record of the Ninth Administrative Review). The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting among the alternative methodologies provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act for determining selling expenses and profit. *See* Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 840 (1994). Nonetheless, we examined each alternative in searching for an appropriate method. Alternative
(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that selling expenses and profit may be calculated based on “actual amounts incurred by the specific exporter or producer...on merchandise in the same general category” as subject merchandise. The Department could not rely on this alternative because Atar does not produce any products other than the subject merchandise. Alternative
(ii)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act provides that selling expenses and profit may be calculated based on “the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by [other] exporters or producers that are subject to the investigation or review.” We could not calculate selling expenses and profit based on this alternative because there is only one other respondent in this case and relying on that respondent's indirect selling expenses and profit would reveal the business-proprietary information. Therefore, we calculated Atar's CV selling expenses and profit based on alternative
(iii)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, which is any other reasonable method. We calculated Atar's CV selling expense and profit ratios using the comparison market selling expense and profit ratios calculated for the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* in this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , Barilla, Corticella/Combattenti, Industrie Alimentare Colavita, S.p.A., Pastificio F.lli Pagani S.p.A., Pallante, and Pastificio Riscossa F.lli Mastromauro, S.r.L.). We computed weighted-average ratios and applied the selling expense ratios to the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication to determine CV selling expenses, and applied the profit ratio to the sum of the cost of materials, fabrication, and general expenses to calculate an amount for profit. Pursuant to alternative (iii), the Department has the option of using any other reasonable method, as long as the result is not greater than the amount realized by exporters or producers “in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise” ( *i.e.* , the “profit cap”). In the instant case, we are using the weighted-average profit rate derived from the comparison market data of the respondents in the immediately preceding administrative review. Accordingly, this weighted-average profit rate represents an amount normally realized by exporters or producers in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign county, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise. As such, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, the weighted-average profit rate of the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* establishes a profit cap. Thus, the reasonable method used by the Department to calculate profit does not exceed the profit cap. Atar submitted to the Department the financial statements of four Italian companies, which Atar claims are “leading pasta manufacturers,” and calculated profit ratios of those companies based on the companies' profits realized during fiscal year 2004. Although these four companies are producers of the same general category of products as the subject merchandise, the financial statements do not provide information that would allow the Department to determine if or the extent to which the companies' sales were made in the comparison market. Further, to determine the most appropriate profit rate under alternative (iii), we weighed several factors. Among them are:
(1)The similarity of the potential surrogate companies' business operations and products to those of respondent;
(2)the extent to which the financial data of the surrogate companies reflect sales in the United States as well as the home market;
(3)the contemporaneity of the surrogate data with the POR; and
(4)the similarity of the customer base. The greater the similarity in business operations, products, and customer base, the more likely that there is a greater correlation between the profit experience of the companies in question. Because the Department typically compares U.S. sales to an NV based on sales in the home market or third country, the Department does not normally construct an NV based on financial data derived from exclusively or predominantly U.S. sales. Finally, contemporaneity is a concern because markets change over time and the more current the data, the more reflective it will be of the market in which the respondent is operating. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from Israel* , 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8, and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Certain Color Television Receivers from Malaysia* , 69 FR 20592 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 26). We determined that the use of the weighted-average profit rate of the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* is a reasonable method. First, the products sold by the other respondents in the comparison market are substantially similar to those sold by Atar. Second, the CV profit rate for the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* excludes sales to the United States. Third, the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* sold to distributor/wholesalers similar to Atar's U.S. customers ( *i.e.* , they had the same type of customer base). We note that the weighted-average CV profit rate calculated for the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* covers a time frame that is not contemporaneous with the POR. The *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* period was July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, while the instant POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. However, we note that the profit rate experience from the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* period reflects the time immediately prior to the instant review. In addition, there is no information on the record to suggest that the profit rate experience from that period is so different from the instant period to render those profit rates distortive. For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting the weighted-average direct selling expenses incurred or realized by the respondents in the *Pasta Eighth Review Final Results* , and adding Atar's U.S. direct selling expenses. *See* Preliminary Results Cost Calculation Memo. F. Level of Trade Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales are at a different level of trade (“LOT”), we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In the home market, Corticella reported three different LOTs corresponding to two differing channels of distribution and five selling activities. Combattenti reported two LOTs and one channel of distribution and five selling activities. The Department has determined that differing channels of distribution, alone, are not sufficient evidence for finding separate LOTs in the home market, when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Based on our overall analysis, we found that the three home market distribution channels reported by respondents were not distinct enough to constitute more than one LOT. Therefore, we found only one LOT in the home market. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* calculation memoranda for Corticella/Combattenti, on file in the CRU. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Atar 18.48 Corticella/Combattenti 3.32 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs, unless the Department alters this time limit. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(h), the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses ( *e.g.* , international freight) from the gross sales value. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All-Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 11.26 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed. These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12796 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-808] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rods From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5255 and
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005) and *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France and India* , Investigation Nos. 731-TA-636, 731-TA-637, and 731-TA-638 (Second Review), 70 FR 38207 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil, France and India: Notice of Final Results of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 70 FR 67447 (November 7, 2005). The ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See* USITC Publication 3866 *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France and India, Investigations Nos. 731-TA-636-638 (Second Review)* (July 2006) and *Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, France, and India* (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-636-638) 71 FR 42118 (July 25, 2006). Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are certain stainless steel wire rods
(SSWR)from India. SSWR are products which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons, or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by weight 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and normally sold in coiled form, and are solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 1 The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. 1 The merchandise subject to the scope of these orders was originally classifiable under all of the following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained in the HTSUS. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than June 2011. This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12860 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-428-825) Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Allegheny Ludlum, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, United Steelworkers, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (collectively, petitioners) and the collapsed respondents ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH (ThyssenKrupp Nirosta), ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (TKVDM), and ThyssenKrupp Nirosta Prazisionsband GmbH
(TKNP)(collectively, TKN), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils
(S4)from Germany. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced by TKN. The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We preliminarily find that TKN made sales at less than normal value during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price
(CEP)and normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments:
(1)a statement of the issues,
(2)a brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including footnotes) and
(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Tyler Weinhold, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-2657,
(202)482-1121 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on S4 from Germany on July 27, 1999. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany* , 64 FR 40557 (July 27, 1999). On July 1, 2005, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request administrative review of S4 from Germany for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 29, 2005, petitioners and TKN both requested an administrative review of TKN's sales for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. On August 29, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). On September 7, 2005, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to TKN. TKN submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on September 28, 2005, and its response to sections B through D of the questionnaire on November 7, 2005. On February 27, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information regarding TKN's response to section D of the questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A and B, to which TKN responded on April 21, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section C, to which TKN responded on May 2, 2006. On May 24, 2006, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire, to which TKN responded on June 12, 2006. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on March 10, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the extension for this review. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 12342 (March 10, 2006). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as July 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc.* ) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 1 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. 1 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold- reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Affiliation/Collapsing Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that certain persons found to be affiliated in accordance with section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), may be treated as a single entity (collapsed), if certain circumstances exist. In the July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, administrative review of S4 from Germany, the Department treated ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKNP, and TKVDM as a single entity ( *i.e.* , collapsed them) because the three companies were affiliated, would not need to engage in major retooling to shift production of S4 from one company to another and were found capable through their sales and production operations of manipulating prices or affecting production decisions. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 45682, 45684-45685 (August 8, 2005) (unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR 73729 (December 13, 2005)). As in the previous administrative review, the record establishes that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM are affiliated based on their common control by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH (TK Stainless), another entity within the ThyssenKrupp group of companies. Section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act provides that two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control of another entity are affiliated. A “person” may be an individual, corporation, or group. Further, as provided by section 771(33) of the Tariff Act, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” The Department has analyzed the information on the record of this administrative review regarding the affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM and has determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM should be considered affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act. *See* Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany: Affiliation and Collapsing of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta Präzisionsband GmbH and ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH,” dated June 30, 2006 (Collapsing Memorandum). Moreover, as in the previous administrative review, the Department has determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin. As explained in the Collapsing Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM have production facilities to produce similar or identical merchandise without substantial retooling and should be treated as a single entity in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, in determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production, as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more reliance on some factors than others. The totality of the circumstances here shows there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. In addition to Thyssen Krupp Nirosta and TKVDM, the record also establishes that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP are affiliated based on Thyssen Krupp Nirosta's 100 percent ownership of TKNP. Section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act provides that “any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization” shall be considered to be affiliated. Further, as provided by section 771(33) of the Tariff Act, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” The Department has analyzed the information on the record of this administrative review regarding the affiliation of ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP and, as in the previous administrative review, has determined preliminarily that the two entities should be considered affiliated under section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act. *See* the Collapsing Memorandum at page 8. Furthermore, as in the previous administrative review, the Department has also determined preliminarily that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin. As explained in the Collapsing Memorandum, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP also have production facilities to produce similar or identical merchandise without substantial retooling and should be treated as a single entity in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, information on the record demonstrates there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). In summary, we find that:
(1)ThyssenKrupp Nirosta is affiliated with both TKNP and TKVDM under section 771(33) of the Tariff Act;
(2)a shift in production between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM or between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP would not require substantial retooling of the facilities of these companies; and
(3)there is a significant potential for price and production manipulation between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKVDM and also between ThyssenKrupp Nirosta and TKNP. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that ThyssenKrupp Nirosta is affiliated with both TKNP and TKVDM and should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin for this administrative review. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of S4 in the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. price to normal value (NV), as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because TKN made no “export price” transactions during the POR, we used only CEP sales in our comparisons. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products produced by TKN covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) cold/hot rolled; 3) gauge; 4) surface finish; 5) metallic coating; 6) non-metallic coating; 7) width; 8) temper; and 9) edge trim. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's September 7, 2005, questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to each U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). Constructed Export Price
(CEP)In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d)of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for all of TKN's U.S. sales because TKN sold merchandise to affiliated companies in the United States which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. TKN reported that sales made through its affiliated importers ThyssenKrupp Nirosta North America, Inc. (TKNNA), Mexinox USA, Inc. (MXXUSA), and ThyssenKrupp VDM USA, Inc. (TKVDMUSA) consisted of two channels of distribution: back-to-back sales and inventory sales. See ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 and C-16 and TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 and C-16. We have preliminarily found that TKN's U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through TKN's U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing errors and early payment discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, war risk insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses, and commissions), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for those sales in which merchandise was sent to an unaffiliated U.S. processor to be further processed, we made an adjustment based on the transaction-specific further processing amounts reported by TKN; for sales through MXXUSA that were further processed in Mexico prior to importation into the United States, we made an adjustment to account for these expenses. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As TKN's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102. If sales were not made at arm's-length, then the Department used the sale from the affiliated party to the first unaffiliated party. To test whether sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, movement charges, commissions, direct selling expenses, imputed credit expense, and packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be calculated for an affiliated customer because identical or similar merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices. Therefore, we excluded any such sales from our analysis. C. Cost of Production Analysis In the segment of this proceeding most recently completed at the time of our initiation of this review, the Department disregarded certain sales made by TKN in the home market because these sales were made at prices less than the cost of production (COP). *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 47900, 47903 (August 6, 2004); *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 75930 (December 20, 2004). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TKN's sales of the foreign like product in the home market were made at prices below their COP in the current review period. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a cost investigation to determine whether TKN's sales made during the POR were at prices below their respective COP. D. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and interest expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by TKN, except for the changes noted below. In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act, where TKN's reported transfer prices for purchases of nickel from an affiliated party were not at arm's-length, we increased these prices to reflect the prevailing market prices. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,” dated July 31, 2006 (COP/CV Adjustment Memorandum). We also revised the interest expense ratio for ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, TKVDM, and TKNP to exclude packing costs from the denominator of the financial expense calculation. *See id* . Finally, we revised TKVDM's general and administrative expense rate to include other operating incomes and expenses. *See id* . E. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP of TKN's home market sales to home market sales prices (net of billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, any applicable movement expenses, direct and indirect selling expenses, commissions, and packing) of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. F. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of TKN's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of TKN's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were made:
(1)in substantial quantities within the POR ( *i.e.* , within an extended period of time) in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, and
(2)at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act ( *i.e.* , the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POR). We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act. In this review, we have found sales below the COP and have, as described above, disregarded such sales from our margin calculations. G. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise ( *i.e.* , DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for commissions, imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses; we offset imputed credit expenses by interest revenue. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. *See* “Level of Trade and CEP Offset” section below. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we made an adjustment ( *i.e.* , the commission offset) to account for commissions paid in one market but not the other. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act. H. Constructed Value
(CV)In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of such or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculate the cost of materials and fabrication for TKN based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we base SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. However, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any instances. Level of Trade and CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. If the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). *See e.g.* , *Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in Final Results, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)); *Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 78417 (December 24, 2002). In implementing these principles in this review, we asked TKN to identify the specific differences and similarities in selling functions and support services between all phases of marketing in the home market and the United States. TKN reported home market sales made through four channels of distribution:
(1)mill direct sales,
(2)mill inventory sales,
(3)service center inventory sales, and
(4)service center processed sales. *See* ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at B-20, TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at B-21, and TKNP's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at B-16 to B-17. For all channels, TKN performs similar selling functions such as negotiating prices with customers, setting credit terms and collecting payment, arranging freight to the customer, conducting sales calls and visits, providing technical service, and processing customer orders. *See* , *e.g.* , TKN's September 28, 2005, questionnaire response at Exhibit 3. The remaining selling activities did not differ significantly by channel of distribution. Because channels of distribution do not qualify as separate LOTs when the selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are sufficiently similar, we determined that one LOT exists for TKN's home market sales. In the U.S. market, TKN made sales of subject merchandise through TKNNA, MXXUSA, and TKVDMUSA. As stated above, TKN reported that sales made through these affiliated importers consisted of two channels of distribution, back-to-back sales and inventory sales. *See* ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 to C-16 and TKVDM's November 7, 2005, questionnaire response at C-15 to C-16. All U.S. sales were CEP transactions and TKN performed the same selling functions in its sale to the affiliated importer in each instance. *See* , *e.g.* , TKN's September 28, 2005, questionnaire response at A-23 to A-25 and Exhibit 3. Therefore, the U.S. market has one LOT. When we compared CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to section 772(d) of the Tariff Act) to home market sales, we determined that for CEP sales TKN performed fewer customer sales contacts, technical services, delivery services, and warranty services. In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for home market and CEP transactions indicate home market sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the home market TKN provides marketing further down the chain of distribution by providing certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by the affiliated resellers in the U.S. market ( *e.g.* , technical advice, sales calls and visits). Based on our analysis, we determined that CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to comparison market sales, we examined whether a LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, because TKN sold at one LOT in the home market, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of TKN's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which such an analysis could be based. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment and the LOT of TKN's home market sales is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act, as claimed by TKN. We based the amount of the CEP offset on home market indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for home market indirect selling expenses to the amount of indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act. We applied the CEP offset to NV, whether based on home market prices or CV. Currency Conversions In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, we made Euro-U.S. Dollar currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board. For certain U.S. sales made by MXXUSA, we converted adjustments denominated in Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board. Finally, for certain U.S. sales denominated in Canadian dollars, we made currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) TKN 2.51%% The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) A statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. TKN has reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the final results of review. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of S4 from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for TKN will be the rate established in the final results of review; 2) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 3) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 13.48 percent from the LTFV investigation. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany: Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 67 FR 15178 (March 29, 2002). This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12798 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-A-351-819, A-427-811] Stainless Steel Wire Rods From Brazil and France: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty
(AD)orders on stainless steel wire rods from Brazil, France, and India, pursuant to section. Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (the ITC) determined that revocation of these orders would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(l)(iii), the Department is revoking the AD orders on stainless steel wire rods from Brazil and France. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5255 and
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders Imports covered by these orders are certain stainless steel wire rods
(SSWR)from Brazil and France. SSWR are products which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons, or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by weight 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling and normally sold in coiled form, and are solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 1 The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. 1 The merchandise subject to the scope of these orders was originally classifiable under all of the following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040,7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained in the HTSUS. Background On January 28, 1994, the Department published *Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil* , 59 FR 4021 and the *Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France* , 59 FR 4022. On August 2, 2000, the Department published the *Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and India* , 65 FR 47403. On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset reviews of the AD orders on stainless steel wire rods from Brazil and France. *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its sunset reviews of these orders, the Department found that revocation of these orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil, France, and India; Notice of Final Results of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 70 FR 67447 (November 7, 2005). The Department notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the AD orders to be revoked. On June 29, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of these orders would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France and India* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-636, 731-TA-637, and 731-TA-638 (Second Review), 70 FR 38207 (July 1, 2005). Determination As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of these orders is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act is revoking the AD orders on SSWR from Brazil and France. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of the revocation is August 2, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notices of continuation of these AD orders.) The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 2, 2005, the effective date of revocation of these orders. The Department will complete any administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12861 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-449-804) Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler or Constance Handley at
(202)482-0189 or
(202)482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs
(LM)have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price
(EP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine* , 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 1, 2005, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request the fourth administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). On September 27, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), LM requested an administrative review. On September 30, 2005, also in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), 1 the petitioner in this proceeding, requested an administrative review of LM. On October 25, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005 (the period of review, or POR). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005). 1 RTAC comprises Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company. On November 22, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to LM, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-D would be due on December 13, 2005, and, December 29, 2005, respectively. 2 The Department received timely responses to Sections A-D of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. 2 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On May 4, 2006, the Department published a notice of a sixty-day extension of the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26335 (May 4, 2006). This notice extended the deadline for the preliminary results to August 1, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( *i.e.* , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the *Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison market that are identical with respect to the matching characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent that fit the definition of the scope of the order and were sold in the comparison market during the POR fall within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on three criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield strength, and size. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. U.S. Market Date of Sale LM reported the commercial invoice date as the date of sale in the U.S. market. In order to determine whether the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale, we requested that LM submit complete sales documentation ( *i.e.* , purchase contracts, contract addenda, pro-forma invoices, appendices to the purchase contracts, amendments to the contract addenda, commercial invoices, and mate's receipts) for all U.S. sales during the POR. LM provided this information in its April 17, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response. We have preliminarily used the date of the final purchase contract amendment that modified the material terms of sale ( *i.e.* , price, quantity within a specified tolerance, and actual products sold) as the U.S. market date of sale because these amendments best reflect the firm establishment of the material terms of sale. The facts of the current segment of the proceeding are consistent with the facts of the third administrative review, in which we also found the date of final amendment to each individual purchase contract to be the date of sale. 3 Because information in LM's sales documentation is business proprietary, we have explained the date of sale methodology in detail in the calculation analysis memorandum. *See Memorandum from Shane Subler, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Constance Handley, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs* , dated August 1, 2006 ( *Analysis Memorandum* ), for further explanation of the selected U.S. market date of sale. For all home market sales, we have preliminarily used the invoice date as the date of sale based on information on the record. 3 We note that the terminology used for LM's sales documentation varies by customer. As shown in Exhibit 11 of LM's April 17, 2006, supplemental response, a purchase contract is equivalent to a contract addendum, and an appendix is equivalent to an amendment to the addendum. *See* the *Analysis Memorandum* for a discussion on how the material terms of sale are established by each of these documents. Sales Transshipped to Third Countries Through the United States Upon reviewing Exhibit 11 of LM's April 17, 2006, supplemental response, we found documentation of mate's receipts indicating that certain rebar reported in LM's U.S. sales database was transshipped through the United States to the British Virgin Islands and the French West Indies. We confirmed that a portion of the rebar covered by these mate's receipts did not enter U.S. customs territory. Therefore, for sales observations that included the transshipped rebar, we removed the quantity of transshipped rebar from the total quantity in the sales observation. *See* the *Analysis Memorandum* for additional details. Export Price We calculated an EP for all of LM's U.S. sales because the merchandise was sold directly by LM to the first unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the United States, and because constructed export price
(CEP)was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, and dunnage expenses. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate); that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP; and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. We found that LM had a viable home market for rebar. As such, LM submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices* section below. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the final results of the third administrative review, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by LM have been made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)during the fourth POR. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for LM for the fourth POR. 1. *Calculation of Cost of Production* In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied on LM's submitted average COP calculations for the POR except that we have preliminarily excluded the value of LM's reported income offset to G&A expenses. We preliminarily find that the record does not include sufficient information on the nature of these offsets or their corresponding costs to warrant including them in the G&A calculation. *See* the *Analysis Memorandum* . 2. *Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices* We compared the weighted-average COPs for LM to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. *Results of the COP Test* We disregarded below-cost sales where
(1)20 percent or more of LM's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that LM made sales below cost, and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We determined NV for LM as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for LM's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. imputed credit expenses. In LM's case, the calculation of imputed credit expenses results in a negative number because LM's U.S. sales are prepaid. Therefore, the adjustment for U.S. imputed credit reduces NV. D. Level of Trade Adjustment In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In conducting our level-of-trade analysis, we examine the types of customers, the channels of distribution, and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. We found the following. For both the home market and U.S. market, LM reported one channel of distribution: direct sales. The company reported three customer categories in the home market:
(1)Traders;
(2)end users; and
(3)service centers. For all three customer categories, LM performed the following selling activities: negotiations with customers, order processing, packing, and delivery services. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that LM's home market sales to these three customer categories constitute a single LOT. LM reported one customer category in the U.S. market - traders. In comparing the company's U.S. sales to its home market sales, we found that the selling functions performed by LM were very similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. sales, LM conducts negotiations with the traders, processes orders, packs the merchandise, and arranges delivery to the port. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at the same level of trade. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005: Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs 6.03 The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate listed above for LM will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12865 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-844) Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We determine that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain lined paper products from India. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Moreover, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to exports of CLPP from India. *See* the “Critical Circumstances” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, AC/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; Telephone: 202-482-2209. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This investigation covers 12 programs and the following manufacturer/exporters: Aero Exports (Aero), Kejriwal Exports, a division of Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal), and Navneet Publications India Ltd. (Navneet). On February 15, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of certain lined paper products from India. *See Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 7196 (February 15, 2006) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . On June 14, 2006, we received comments from petitioners and respondents. 1 On June 19, 2006, we received rebuttal comments from petitioners and respondents. 1 Petitioners are the Association of American School Paper Suppliers. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. Critical Circumstances As explained in the *Preliminary Determination* , petitioners requested that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206, the Department make an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of lined paper products from India. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we determined that critical circumstances did not exist. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 7917. For purposes of this final determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist as petitioners' allegation does not provide a sufficient factual basis for making an affirmative finding. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from: Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Operations, Office 3: Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, (July 31, 2006) (publicly on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main building of the Commerce Department). Scope of the Investigation For scope information, see Appendix I. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) dated July 31, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act fo 1930 (as amended) (the Act), we have calculated individual rates for the companies under investigation. For the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, we determine the net subsidy rates for the investigated companies are as follows: Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Aero Exports
(Aero)7.05 percent *ad valorem* Kejriwal Exports, a division of Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal) *de minimis* Navneet Publications India Ltd. (Navneet) 10.24 percent *ad valorem* All Others Rate 9.42 percent *ad valorem* To calculate the “All Others” rate, we weight averaged the individual rates of Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet by each company's respective sales of subject merchandise made to the United States during the POI, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In accordance with our preliminary affirmative determination, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain lined paper products from India, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 15, 2006, the date of the publication of our *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed the CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for merchandise entered on or after June 15, 2006, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries made between February 15, 2006, and June 14, 2006. With the exception of Kejriwal, we will reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act for all entries if the International Trade Commission
(ITC)issues a final affirmative injury determination and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Because we have determined that Kejriwal's net subsidy rate is *de minimis* , we will direct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for Kejriwal's shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 15, 2006, the publication date of the *Preliminary Determination* , and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided that the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, these proceedings will be terminated. If however, the ITC determines that such injury does exist, we will issue a countervailing duty order. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this investigation whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated , included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper, “ and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled (“Gregg ruling” consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope). Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Appendix II - Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary A. General Comments Comment 1. Treatment of Contingent Liability Benefits Under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Comment 2. Valuation of DEPS Benefits B. Navneet Comment 3: Benchmark Used Under the EPCGS Program Comment 4: Benchmark Used for Navneet Under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing Program Comment 5: Navneet's Use of the 80 HHC Income Tax Exemption Comment 6: Denominator Used to Calculate Navneet's Net Subsidy Rate Under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing Program Comment 7: Denominator Used to Calculate Navneet's Net Subsidy Rate Under the Duty-Free Replenishment Certificate
(DFRC)Scheme C. Kejriwal Comment 8: Benchmark Used to Calculate Countervailable Benefits Received by Kejriwal under the Post-Shipment Export Financing Program Comment 9: Fulfillment of Export Obligation Under the EPCGS D. Aero Comment 10: Countervailability of the Advance License Program
(ALP)Comment 11: Program-Wide Changes With Respect to the ALP Comment 12: Attribution of Subsidies Aero Received under the Post-Shipment Export Financing Program II. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Benchmark for Short-Term Loans B. Benchmark for Long-Term Loans Issued III. Critical Circumstances IV. Analysis Of Programs A. Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies 1. *Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing* 2. *Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)* 3. *Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)* 4. *Duty Free Replenishment Certificate
(DFRC)Scheme* 5. *Advance License Program (ALP)* 6. *Income Tax Exemption Scheme under 80HHC (80HHC)* B. Programs Determined Not to be Used 1. Export Processing Zones
(EPZ)and Export Oriented Units
(EOU)2. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A and 10B) 3. Market Development Assistance
(MDA)4. Status Certificate Program 5. Market Access Initiative 6. State of Gujarat Sales Tax Incentives 7. State of Maharashtra Sales Tax Incentives V. Total Ad Valorem Rates VI. Analysis Of Comments [FR Doc. E6-12809 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-825) Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate
(PET)film from India for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided on the production and export of PET film from India. *See* the “Preliminary Results of Administrative Review” section, below. If the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess countervailing duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice. In addition, we are rescinding this review with respect to Garware Polyester Limited (Garware). *See* the “Partial Rescission of Review” section, below. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0197,
(202)482-1395, or
(202)482-1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on PET film from India. *See Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from India* , 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002) (PET Film Order). On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 27, 2005, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ), and on July 29, 2005, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal), formerly named Jindal Polyester Limited, Indian producers and exporters of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to their exports to the United States. On July 29, 2005, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, and Toray Plastics (America), (collectively, petitioners), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to Jindal and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex) (collectively, respondents). Also, on August 1, 2005, Garware requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to its exports to the United States. On August 19, 2005, MTZ withdrew its request for review of the CVD order of PET film from India. *See* Memorandum to File through Howard Smith from Drew Jackson: “Withdrawal of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review Request” (August 23, 2005) (on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building). Since this company was the sole requestor for an administrative review, and since its withdrawal occurred prior to the date of initiation, we did not include this company in the initiation of the administrative review. On August 29, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India covering Jindal, Garware, and Polyplex, for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). The Department issued questionnaires to the Government of India
(GOI)and all three respondents. On September 14, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1), Garware timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India. Because no other party requested an administrative review of this respondent, the Department is rescinding its review with respect to Garware. *See* the “Partial Rescission of Review” section below. On September 29, 2005, the GOI submitted its questionnaire response. Jindal and Polyplex submitted their questionnaire responses on October 3, 2005 and October 4, 2005, respectively. The Department issued its first supplemental questionnaires to Jindal and Polyplex on November 4, 2005 and November 7, 2005, respectively. On November 28, 2005, both Jindal and Polyplex submitted their first supplemental responses. On February 21, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results until July 31, 2006. *See Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film from India* , 71 FR 8840 (February 21, 2006). On April 14, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jindal and Polyplex, and its first supplemental questionnaire to the GOI. The GOI submitted its response to the supplemental questionnaire on April 28, 2006, and Jindal and Polyplex responded on May 8, 2006. On June 20, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, and third supplemental questionnaires to Jindal and Polyplex. The GOI submitted its response on June 27, 2006, and Jindal and Polyplex responded on July 5, 2006. Also, on July 5, 2006, the Department issued its third supplemental questionnaire to the GOI, to which the GOI submitted its response on July 12, 2006. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we intend to conduct verification of the GOI, Jindal, and Polyplex questionnaire responses following the issuance of the preliminary results. Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review As provided in 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1), “the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Garware withdrew its review request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the instant administrative review. Because no other interested parties requested an administrative review of Garware, the Department is rescinding the instant administrative review of this company. Subsidies Valuation Information Allocation Period Under 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(i), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life
(AUL)prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)for renewable physical assets of the industry under consideration (as listed in the IRS's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, and as updated by the Department of the Treasury). This presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets of the company or industry under investigation. Specifically, the party must establish that the difference between the AUL from the tables and the company-specific AUL or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to manufacture plastic film, such as PET film, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 9.5 years. In the investigative segment of this proceeding, the Department determined that Polyplex had rebutted the presumption and applied a company-specific AUL of 18 years for Polyplex. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film)* , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) ( *PET Film Final Determination* ). In the previous review, the Department determined that Jindal had rebutted the presumption and applied a company-specific AUL of 17 years for Jindal. *See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 69 FR 51063 (August 17, 2004) ( *First PET Film Review - Final Results* ). Because there is no new evidence on the record that would cause the Department to reconsider this decision in this review, the Department has preliminarily determined to continue to use an AUL of 17 years for Jindal and 18 years for Polyplex in allocating non-recurring subsidies. Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount Rates For programs requiring the application of a benchmark interest rate, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(1) states a preference for using an interest rate that the company could have obtained on a comparable loan in the commercial market. Also, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(i) stipulates that when selecting a comparable commercial loan that the recipient “could actually obtain on the market” the Department will normally rely on actual short-term and long-term loans obtained by the firm. However, when there are no comparable commercial loans, the Department may use a national average interest rate, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii). In addition, 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(ii) states that the Department will not consider a loan provided by a government-owned special purpose bank for purposes of calculating benchmark rates. The Department has previously determined that the Industrial Development Bank of India
(IDBI)is a government-owned special purpose bank. *See First PET Film Review - Final Results* and the accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum (Issues Memorandum - First Review* ), at 15-16. As such, the Department did not use loans from the IDBI reported by Jindal and Polyplex in its 2004 benchmark calculations. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(iv), if a program under review is a government-provided, short-term loan, the preference would be to use an annual average of the interest rates on comparable commercial loans during the year in which the government-provided loan was taken out, weighted by the principal amount of each loan. For this review, the Department required both dollar-denominated and rupee-denominated short-term loan benchmark rates to determine benefits received under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing and Post-Shipment Export Financing programs. Both Jindal and Polyplex have provided information on rupee-denominated short-term commercial loans outstanding during the period of review (POR). Jindal provided the following rupee-denominated short-term commercial loans: Inland Bill Discounting (IBD); Working Capital Development Loans (WCDL); Cash Credit (CC); and Other Short-Term Loans. Polyplex provided the following rupee-denominated short-term commercial loans: IBD; WCDL; CC; Commercial Paper Loans; and Other Short-Term Loans. In previous reviews of this case, the Department has determined that IBD loans are more comparable to pre-shipment and post-shipment export financing loans than other types of rupee-denominated short-term loans. *See Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 70 FR 46483, 46485 (August 10, 2005) ( *Second PET Film Review - Preliminary Results* ) (unchanged in the final results); and *Issues Memorandum - First Review* at 10. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to use IBD loans as the basis for the short-term rupee-denominated benchmark for all applicable programs for both Jindal and Polyplex. Polyplex provided information on US dollar-denominated WCDL received during the POR to use as the basis for US dollar-denominated short-term benchmark rates. The Department, therefore, has calculated Polyplex's US dollar-denominated short-term benchmark rates based on its US dollar-denominated WCDLs. Jindal did not have any US dollar-denominated short-term loans during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii), the Department used a national average dollar-denominated short-term interest rate, as reported in the International Monetary Fund's publication International Financial Statistics (IMF Statistics) for Jindal. For those programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or the application of a rupee-denominated long-term benchmark rate, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest rates on comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans. For this review, the Department required benchmarks to determine benefits received under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and Export Oriented Units
(EOU)programs. Respondents did not have comparable commercial long-term rupee-denominated loans for all required years; therefore, for those years for which we did not have company-specific information, we relied on comparable long-term rupee-denominated benchmark interest rates from the immediately preceding year as directed by 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(iii). When there were no comparable long-term, rupee-denominated loans from commercial banks during either the year under consideration or the preceding year, we used national average interest rates, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii), from the IMF Statistics. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Countervailable 1. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides short-term pre-shipment financing, or “packing credits,” to exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working capital purposes ( *i.e.* , purchasing raw materials, warehousing, packing, transportation, etc.) for merchandise destined for exportation. Companies may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they draw as needed. Limits on credit lines are established by commercial banks and are based on a company's creditworthiness and past export performance. Credit lines may be denominated either in Indian rupees or in a foreign currency. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian companies must, by law, charge interest at rates determined by the RBI. Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters qualify for this program by presenting their export documents to the lending bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of the goods to the date of realization of the proceeds from the sale to the overseas customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, exporters are required to realize proceeds from their export sales within 180 days of shipment. Post-shipment financing is, therefore, a working capital program used to finance export receivables. In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period of no more than 180 days. In the investigation, the Department determined that the pre-shipment and post-shipment export financing programs conferred countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise because:
(1)The provision of the export financing constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act as a direct transfer of funds in the form of loans;
(2)the provision of the export financing confers benefits on the respondents under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in as much as the interest rates given under these programs are lower than commercially available interest rates; and
(3)these programs are specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because they are contingent upon export performance. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film)* , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) ( *PET Film Final Determination* ) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Financing” ( *PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum* ). There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. The benefit conferred by the pre-shipment and post-shipment loans is the difference between the amount of interest the company paid on the government loan and the amount of interest it would have paid on a comparable commercial loan ( *i.e.* , the short-term benchmark). Because pre-shipment loans are tied to a company's exports rather than exports of subject merchandise, we calculated the subsidy rate for these loans by dividing the total benefit by the value of each respondent's total exports during the POR. Because post-shipment loans are tied to specific shipments of a particular product to a particular country, we divided the total benefit from post-shipment loans tied to exports of subject merchandise to the United States by the value of total exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See* 19 CFR § 351.525(b)(4). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from pre-shipment export financing to be 0.02 percent *ad valorem* for Jindal, and 0.30 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. We also preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal from post-shipment export financing to be 0.05 percent *ad valorem* . Polyplex did not receive any benefits under the post-shipment export financing program during the POR. 2. Advance License Program
(ALP)Under the ALP, exporters may import, duty free, specified quantities of materials required to manufacture products that are subsequently exported. The exporting companies, however, remain contingently liable for the unpaid duties until they have fulfilled their export requirement. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished products are linked through standard input-output norms (SIONs) established by the GOI. During the POR, Jindal and Polyplex used advance licenses to import certain materials duty free. The Department previously found the 1997-2003 Export/Import Guidelines underlying the ALP to be not countervailable. *See PET Film Final Determination* . However, in the last administrative review, the Department examined the 2002-2007 Export/Import Policy Guidelines underlying the ALP and found the program to be countervailable because the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4). *See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006) ( *Second PET Film Review - Final Results* ), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ( * Issues Memorandum - Second Review * ). In that review, the Department found that the ALP confers a countervailable subsidy because:
(1)A financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided under the program, as the GOI provides the respondents with an exemption of import duties;
(2)the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4), to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported products; thus, the entire amount of import duty exemption earned by the respondent constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act; and
(3)this program is contingent upon exportation and, therefore, is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. *See Issues Memorandum - Second Review* , at 3-5. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c), exemptions of import duties on imports consumed in production normally provide a recurring benefit. Under this program, for 2004, Jindal and Polyplex did not have to pay certain import duties for inputs that were used in the production of merchandise. Thus, we treated the benefit provided under the ALP as a recurring benefit. To calculate the subsidy, we first determined the total value of duties exempted during the POR for each company. From this amount, we subtracted the required application fees paid for each license during the POR as an allowable offset to the actual amount in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act (in order to receive the benefits of the ALP, companies must pay application fees). We then divided the resulting net benefit by the company's value of total export sales. We did not include either respondents' “deemed exports” sales ( *i.e.* , sales of goods which do not leave the country) as part of their total value of export sales for this or any program. We will examine the issue of “deemed exports” further at verification and invite parties to comment on this issue in their briefs. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided under the ALP to be 5.33 *ad valorem* for Jindal and 2.07 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. 3. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties and excise taxes on imports of capital goods used in the production of exported products. Under this program, producers pay reduced duty rates on imported capital equipment by committing to earn convertible foreign currency equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods within a period of eight years. Once a company has met its export obligation, the GOI will formally waive the duties on the imported goods. If a company fails to meet the export obligation, the company is subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest. In the investigation, the Department determined that import duty reductions provided under the EPCGS are a countervailable export subsidy because the scheme:
(1)Provides a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the form of revenue foregone; and
(2)provides a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of the revenue foregone. Because this program is contingent upon export performance, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. *See PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum* , at 7-8. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. These import duty exemptions were provided for the purchase of capital equipment. The preamble to our regulations states that if a government provides an import duty exemption tied to major equipment purchases, “it may be reasonable to conclude that, because these duty exemptions are tied to capital assets, the benefits from such duty exemptions should be considered non-recurring.” *See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998). Accordingly, we are treating these exemptions as non-recurring benefits in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii). Jindal and Polyplex reported that they imported capital goods under the EPCGS in the years prior to and during the POR. Jindal received various EPCGS licenses, which were for the production of:
(1)Both subject merchandise and non-subject merchandise; or
(2)non-subject merchandise. Polyplex received EPCGS licenses which indicated that it was allowed to import capital goods for the production of:
(1)subject merchandise;
(2)both subject merchandise and non-subject merchandise; or
(3)non-subject merchandise. Based on the information and documentation submitted by Jindal and Polyplex, we cannot determine that their respective EPCGS licenses are tied to the production of a particular product within the meaning of 19 CFR § 351.525(b)(5). As such, we find that each company's respective EPCGS licenses benefit all of the company's exports. Polyplex met the export requirements for certain EPCGS licenses prior to December 31, 2004 and the GOI has formally waived the relevant import duties. For some of its licenses, however, Polyplex has not yet met its export obligation as required under the program. Jindal has not yet met its export obligation for any of its imports of capital goods under the program. Therefore, although Jindal and Polyplex have received a deferral from paying import duties when the capital goods were imported, the final waiver on the obligation to pay the duties has not yet been granted for many of these imports. For Polyplex's imports for which the GOI has formally waived the duties, we treat the full amount of the waived duty as a grant received in the year in which the GOI officially granted the waiver. To calculate the benefit received from the GOI's formal waiver of import duties on Polyplex's capital equipment imports where its export obligation was met prior to December 31, 2004, we considered the total amount of duties waived (net of required application fees) to be the benefit. Further, consistent with the approach followed in the investigation, we determine the year of receipt of the benefit to be the year in which the GOI formally waived Polyplex's outstanding import duties. *See PET Film Final Determination-Decision Memorandum* , at *Comment 5* . Next, we performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2), for each year in which the GOI granted Polyplex an import duty waiver. Those waivers with values in excess of 0.5 percent of Polyplex's total export sales in the year in which the waivers were granted were allocated using Polyplex's company-specific AUL, while waivers with values less than 0.5 percent of Polyplex's total export sales were expensed in the year of receipt. *See* “Allocation Period” section, above. As noted above, import duty reductions that Jindal and Polyplex received on the imports of capital equipment for which they have not yet met export obligations may have to be repaid to the GOI if the obligations under the licenses are not met. Consistent with our practice and prior determinations, we will treat the unpaid import duty liability as an interest-free loan. *See* 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1); and *PET Film Final Determination-Decision Memorandum, at “EPCGS”; see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Resin From India* , 70 FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) ( *Final - Indian PET Resin* ). The amount of the unpaid duty liabilities to be treated as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or exemption for which the respondent applied, but, as of the end of the POR, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we find the benefit to be the interest that Jindal and Polyplex would have paid during the POR had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction or exemption at the time of importation. *See Second PET Film Review - Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 46488 (unchanged in the final results); *see also (Final - Indian PET Resin)* . As stated above, under the EPCGS program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment expires eight years after importation of the capital good. Consequently, the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment occurs at a point in time more than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( *i.e.* , the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time that is more than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods ( *i.e.* , under the EPCGS program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment is more than one year after importation of the capital good). As the benchmark interest rate, we used the weighted-average interest rate from all comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans for the year in which the capital good was imported. *See* the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section above for a discussion of the applicable benchmark. The benefit received under the EPCGS is the total amount of:
(1)the benefit attributable to the POR from the formally waived duties for imports of capital equipment for which respondents met export requirements by December 31, 2004, and/or
(2)interest due on the contingent liability loans for imports of capital equipment that have not met export requirements. To calculate the benefit from the waived duties for Polyplex, we took the total amount of the waived duties in each year and treated each year's waived amount as a non-recurring grant. We applied the grant methodology set forth in 19 CFR § 351.524(d), using the discount rates discussed in the “Benchmark Interest Rates and Discount Rates” section above to determine the benefit amounts attributable to the POR. To calculate the benefit from the contingent liability loans for both Jindal and Polyplex, we multiplied the total amount of unpaid duties under each license by the long-term benchmark interest rate for the year in which the license was approved. We then summed these amounts to determine the total benefit for each company. For Jindal, we divided the benefit from the contingent liability loans under the EPGCS by Jindal's total exports to determine a subsidy of 2.85 percent *ad valorem* . For Polyplex, we summed the benefits attributable to the POR from the duty waivers under the EPGCS with the benefits from the contingent liability loans and divided that total by Polyplex's total exports to determine a subsidy of 4.29 percent *ad valorem* . 4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme 80HHC (80HHC) Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters to exclude profits derived from export sales from their taxable income. In prior proceedings, the Department found this program to be a countervailable export subsidy, because it is contingent upon export performance and, therefore, specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the GOI provides a financial contribution in the form of tax revenue not collected. Finally, a benefit is conferred in the amount of the tax savings in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. *See Second PET Film Review - Preliminary Results* , 46488 (unchanged in the final results). To calculate the benefit under this program, we first calculated the total amount of income tax each company would have paid during the POR had it not claimed a tax deduction under section 80HHC and subtracted from this amount the income taxes actually paid during the POR. We then divided this benefit by each company's total export sales consistent with 19 CFR§ 351.525(b)(2). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy under section 80HHC to be 0.28 percent *ad valorem* for Jindal and 1.60 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. The GOI, Jindal, and Polyplex have argued that the 80HHC exemption was phased out effective March 31, 2004, and have provided documentation to support their claim. *See Government of India's Questionnaire Response* , at Exhibit 10 (September 29, 2005); Jindal's Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 24a (October 3, 2005); and Polyplex's Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 23 (October 3, 2005). According to these submissions, the 80HHC program ended March 31, 2004. As a result, Jindal and Polyplex only claimed deductions of profits derived from exported goods through March 31, 2004 in computing their total taxable income during the POR. Due to the phase out of the 80HHC program, both Jindal and Polyplex have requested that the Department determine that the elimination of this deduction constitutes a program-wide change under 19 CFR § 351.526. In the Finance Act of 2000, the GOI amended the Income Tax Act of 1961, stating that the 80HHC exemption would be phased out on April 1, 2004. In addition, Jindal and Polyplex submitted their October 31, 2005 tax returns (which cover the tax year April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005) in which neither company claimed an 80HHC exemption. After analyzing the documentation on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that there has been a program-wide change with respect to the 80HHC Tax Exemption Scheme. If we find in the final results of review that this program was terminated in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR § 351.526, we will include these subsidies in the assessment rate but exclude them from the cash deposit rate. 5. Capital Subsidy Polyplex received a capital infusion in 1989 from the GOI. This subsidy was discovered at verification during the investigation. *See PET Film Final Determination-Decision Memorandum* , at “Capital Subsidy.” The Department determined at that time that there was insufficient time to establish whether the program was specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Thus, the Department stated its intention to re-examine the program in a future administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.311(c)(2). *Id* . Based on the information obtained during the verification in the investigation, the Department determined that a financial contribution was provided by the GOI, pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and a benefit, in the amount of the capital subsidy, was received by Polyplex under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. In all previous administrative reviews, the Department has sent questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to determine whether the capital subsidy program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. Neither the GOI nor Polyplex was able to provide any information regarding the subsidy. As facts available, the Department determined that the subsidy was specific. *See Second PET Film Review - Preliminary Results* , at 46489 (unchanged in the final results). In the current review, the Department again sent questionnaires to the GOI and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to determine whether the program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. As in the previous reviews, Polyplex and the GOI reported that they were unable to provide any information regarding the specificity of this program due to the considerable amount of time that has elapsed since the provision of the subsidy. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find, as facts available, that the subsidy is specific under section 771(5A)(A) of the Act. Because the benefit was provided through a capital grant, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c), the Department finds it to be non-recurring. Thus, in calculating the subsidy for this program, we performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2). Because the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of Polyplex's total sales in 1989, the year in which the capital grant was received, the benefits were allocated over 18 years, the company-specific AUL. In allocating this capital grant, we used the Department's standard allocation methodology for non-recurring subsidies under 19 CFR § 351.524(d). To calculate the net subsidy to Polyplex from this capital subsidy, we divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the company's total sales during the same period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex under this program to be 0.01 percent *ad valorem* . 6. Export Oriented Units
(EOU)Companies that are designated as an EOU are eligible to receive various forms of assistance in exchange for committing to export all of the products they produce, excluding rejects and certain domestic sales, for five years. Companies designated as EOUs may receive the following benefits:
(1)duty-free importation of capital goods and raw materials;
(2)reimbursement of central sales taxes
(CST)paid on materials procured within India;
(3)purchase of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty; and
(4)receipt of duty drawback on furnace oil procured from domestic oil companies. Consistent with the previous review, Jindal reported that it had been designated as an EOU. *See Second PET Film Review - Preliminary Results* , at 46489 (unchanged in the final results). Specifically, Jindal reported receiving the following benefits:
(1)The duty-free importation of capital goods;
(2)the reimbursement of CST paid on raw materials and capital goods procured domestically; and
(3)the purchase of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty. For the other two types of benefits received by Jindal, the Department previously determined that the purchase of materials and/or inputs free of central excise duty is not countervailable. *See Final - Indian PET Resin* . The Department determined that the EOU program was specific, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, since the receipt of benefits under this program was contingent upon export performance. *See Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Resin From India* , 69 FR 52866, 52870 (August 30, 2004) (unchanged in final determination) ( *PET Resin from India - Preliminary Determination* ). There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. a. *Duty-Free Importation of Capital Goods and Raw Materials* Under this program, an EOU is entitled to import, duty-free, capital goods and raw materials for the production of exported goods in exchange for committing to export all of the products it produces, with the exception of sales in the Domestic Tariff Area over five years. The Department previously determined that the duty-free importation of capital goods provides a financial contribution and confers benefits equal to the amount of exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes. *See* sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and
(E)of the Act. *See also PET Resin from India - Preliminary Determination* , at 52870 (unchanged in final determination). However, according to the GOI and Jindal, until an EOU demonstrates that it has fully met its export requirements, the company retains a contingent liability to repay the import duty exemptions. Jindal has not yet met its export contingency and will owe the unpaid duties if the export requirements are not met. Upon Jindal meeting its export requirement, the Department will treat the unpaid duties as a grant. In the meantime, consistent with 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), until the contingent liability for the unpaid duties is officially waived by the GOI, we consider the unpaid duties to be an interest-free loan made to Jindal at the time of importation. We determine the benefit to be the interest that Jindal would have paid during the POR had it borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction or exemption at the time of importation. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( *i.e.* , the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time that is more than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods ( *i.e.* , under the EOU program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment is more than one year after importation of the capital good). We used the long-term, rupee-denominated benchmark interest rate discussed in the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section above for each year in which capital goods were imported as the benchmark. The benefit for each year is the total amount of interest that would have been paid if the firm had received a loan to pay the duties. To calculate the subsidy, we divided the total amount of benefits under the program during the POR by Jindal's total value of export sales. We preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal through the duty-free importation of capital goods under the EOU program to be 3.53 percent *ad valorem* . b. *Reimbursement of CST Paid on Materials Procured Domestically* Jindal was reimbursed for the CST it paid on raw materials and capital goods procured domestically. The benefit associated with domestically purchased materials is the amount of reimbursed CST received by Jindal during the POR. The Department previously determined that the reimbursement of CST paid on materials procured domestically provides a financial contribution and confers benefits equal to the amount of exemptions and reimbursements of sales taxes pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and
(E)of the Act. *See, e.g., Second Pet Film Review - Final Results* , at 46490. Normally, tax reimbursements, such as the CST, are considered to be recurring benefits. However, a portion of the benefit of this program is tied to a company's capital assets. As such, we would treat reimbursements which are tied to capital goods as a non-recurring benefit pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(2)(iii). However, we performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2) and find that the amount of CST reimbursements tied to capital goods received during the POR was less than 0.5 percent of total export sales for 2004. Therefore, the benefit is the amount of CST reimbursements received during the POR. *See* 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2). To calculate the benefit for Jindal, we first summed the total amount of CST reimbursements for capital goods and raw materials received during the POR. We divided this amount by the total value of export sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal through the reimbursement of CST under the EOU program to be 0.07 percent *ad valorem* . 7. State Sales Tax Incentive Programs According to the GOI, various state governments in India grant exemptions to, or deferrals from, sales taxes in order to encourage regional development. *See Government of India's Questionnaire Response* , at 45 (September 29, 2005). These incentives allow privately-owned ( *i.e.* , not 100 percent owned by the GOI) manufacturers, that are in selected industries and which are located in the designated regions, to sell goods without charging or collecting state sales taxes. As a result of these programs, the respondents did not pay sales taxes on their purchases from suppliers located in certain states. The states from which Jindal and Polyplex made purchases but did not pay sales taxes during the POR are the states of: Uttaranchal/Uttar Pradesh (SOU/SUP), Maharashtra (SOM), West Bengal, Gujurat, Himachal Pradesh, Daman, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagarhaveli, Karnataka, Delhi, Chattisgarh, Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, and Punjab. In the previous review, we determined that the operation of these types of state sales tax programs confers a countervailable subsidy. *See Second PET Film Review - Final Results* , at 46490. The financial contribution is the tax revenue foregone by the respective state governments and the benefit equals the amount of sales taxes not paid by Jindal and Polyplex. Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, these programs are also *de jure* specific because they are limited to certain regions within the respective states administering the programs. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. To calculate the benefit, we first calculated the total sales tax reduction or exemption the respondents received during the POR by subtracting taxes paid from the amount that would have been paid on their purchases during the POR absent these programs. We then divided these amounts by each respondent's total sales during the POR to calculate a net countervailable subsidy of 1.02 percent *ad valorem* for Jindal and 4.90 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. 8. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate
(DFRC)The DFRC scheme was introduced by the GOI in 2001 and is administered by the Director-General for Foreign Trade (DGFT). The DFRC is a duty replenishment scheme that is available to exporters for the subsequent import of inputs used in the manufacture of goods without payment of basic customs duty. In order to receive a license, which entitles the recipient to subsequently import, duty free, certain inputs used in the production of the exported product, as identified in SION, within the following 24 months, a company must:
(1)export manufactured products listed in the GOI's export policy book and against which there is a SION for inputs required in the manufacture of the export product based on quantity; and
(2)have realized the payment of export proceeds in the form of convertible foreign currency. *See* the Ministry of Commerce and Industry Directorate General of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, sect. 4.2 fact. *See also* page 13 of the Government of India's Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated April 28, 2006. The application must be filed within six months of the realization of the profits. DFRC licenses are transferrable, yet the transferee is limited to importing only those products and in the quantities specified on the license. Although 19 CFR § 351.519(b)(2) provides that the Secretary will normally consider any benefit from a duty drawback or exemption program as having been received as of the date of exportation, we preliminarily find that an exception to this normal practice is warranted here in view of the unique manner in which this program operates. Specifically, a company may not submit an application for a DFRC license until the proceeds of the sale are realized. The license, once granted, specifies the quantity of the particular inputs that the bearer may subsequently import duty free. In the case of the DFRC, the company does not know at the time of export the value of the duty exemption that it will ultimately receive. It only knows the quantity of the inputs it will likely be able to import duty free if its application for a DFRC license is granted. Under the DFRC, the respondent will only know the total value of the duty exemption when it subsequently imports the specified products duty free with the license, or sells it. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the date of receipt is linked to when the company imports an input duty free with the certificate. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India* , 71 FR 1512 (January 10, 2006) (unchanged in the final results). In the case in which the company sells the certificate, the date of sale is when the benefit occurs. *See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* 62 FR 32297 (June 13, 1997) ( *1994 Indian Castings Final Results* ). Neither Jindal nor Polyplex reported imports using a DFRC license or exports against a DFRC license during the POR. However, Polyplex reported selling part of its rights under the DFRC Scheme. The Department has previously determined that the sale of import licenses confers a countervailable export subsidy. *See e.g., 1994 Indian Castings Final Results* . Therefore, in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, we determine that Polyplex's partial sale of its rights under the DFRC Scheme is an export subsidy and that a financial contribution is provided, under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, in the form of the revenue foregone. We further find that the sale conferred a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of the revenue from the sale. There is no new information or evidence of changed circumstances which would warrant reconsidering this finding. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable. To calculate the benefit to Polyplex on the partial sale of its rights under the DFRC Scheme, we identified the proceeds it realized from the sale during the POR (net of required application fees). We then calculated the subsidy by dividing the total benefit by the total value of Polyplex's export sales during the POR. On this basis, we determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.03 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. Programs Preliminarily Determined to be Not Used We preliminarily determine that the producers/exporters of PET film products did not apply for or receive benefits during the POR under the programs listed below: 1. *Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)* 2. *Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme - State of Maharashtra* Preliminary Results of Administrative Review In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated individual subsidy for Jindal and Polyplex for the POR. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy to be 13.15 percent *ad valorem* for Jindal and 13.19 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct CBP, within 15 days of publication, to liquidate shipments of PET film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 at 13.15 percent *ad valorem* for Jindal and at 13.20 percent *ad valorem* for Polyplex. We will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for Jindal and Polyplex at the rates indicated above. As discussed above, if we determine in the final results that the Section 80HHC program has been terminated, we will remove the rate for that program from the cash deposit rate for each company. In addition, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposit rates for non-reviewed companies at the most recent rate applicable to the company. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise instructed by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of their arguments. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR § 351.309(c)(ii), are due. *See* 19 CFR § 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR § 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12813 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS or Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for both primary and alternate members of the following seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Business/Commerce, Citizen-At-Large, Commercial Shipping, Conservation, Ocean Recreation, Tourism, and Whale Watching. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 2-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter. DATES: Applications are due by August 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Mary Grady, 6600 Kalanianaole Hwy., Suite 301, Honolulu, HI 96825 or *Mary.Grady@noaa.gov.* Completed applications should be sent to the same address. Applications are also available online at *http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naomi McIntosh, 6600 Kalanianaole Hwy., Suite 301, Honolulu, HI 96825 or *Naomi.McIntosh@noaa.gov* or 808.397.2651. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HIHWNMS Advisory Council was established in March 1996 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. Since its establishment, the Council has played a vital role in the decisions affecting the Sanctuary surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands. The Council's twenty-four voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus ten local, state and federal governmental jurisdictions. The Council is supported by three committees: A Research Committee chaired by the Research Representative, and Education Committee chaired by the Education Representative, and a Conservation Committee chaired by the Conservation Representative, each respectively dealing with matters concerning research, education and resource protection. The Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the state and federal management agencies, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts and attention on the humpback whale and its habitat around the main Hawaiian Islands. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager and is instrumental in helping to develop policies and program goals, and to identify education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection and revenue enhancement priorities. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manager in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program within the context of Hawaii's marine programs and policies. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: July 28, 2006. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 06-6742 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
CFR
3 references not yet in our index
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 337 F.3d 1373
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice and request for applications
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.218
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.410
C.F.R.§ 351.412
C.F.R.§ 351.212
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
Cite19 USC 81a-81u
Cite15 CFR 400
Cites 30 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.